Trial Discussion Thread #20 - 14.04.08, Day 18

[Rumpole]

I found OP testimony "heart wrenching"

As human beings we empathize (to a greater or lesser extent) when we hear of fellow human beings in dire circumstance.

I could imagine his fear and dread... terror...total darkness and on his stumps he would be as vulnerable as a small child... I picture a child rather than a 6ft adult.

And afterwards.... I can imagine more terror, confusion and the horror of seeing what he had done.

People can get right into hearing, seeing, reading fictional description .. and feel emotion and cry themselves (over fictional events). Listening to Oscar was far more that a fictional description it was real and VERY moving. (for me)

 

[BabaJ]

When a person is trying to make something sound genuine when it's not, it shows. As normal human beings we can tell when someone is being sincere. When a person who is not recalling a real event is describing fear, the tone and inflection of their voice will not match the words they are saying. They use catchphrases like, "mortal terror" and, "in fear of my life." OP recounting the events from that night really affected me because it sounded so real. It was if he was reliving the moment he thought an intruder had come into his home. There was genuine terror in his voice. And the horror he felt when he realized it could have been Reeva. "I didn't want it to be true." Also, a very visceral and real thing to say, IMO.

:moo:

With all due respect, I do not believe that extreme emotional outbursts and crying/wailing constitute genuine sincerity. :truce::Yes, he looks remorseful but the main questions is WHY? Is it grief, regret, possible loss of life he got accustomed to or just a result of proper coaching? Who knows? I do not see Reeva's parents, who lost their child, showing emotional outbursts, using green buckets and generally behaving like they want attention and pity. But I am no behavioral expert, is there any psychologist or psychiatrist on the board, who could interpret OP's behaviour?

 

[nastasya]

Nel still has to cross examine. Though he hasn't presented hard evidence thus far for premeditated. Not at all.

And the screaming I mentioned a few pages back. If 500 witnesses testified to female screams, it's irrelevant, as Oscar DIDN'T hear anything, thus didn't know it was Reeva behind door. He's the one who has to hear screaming.

How does anyone PROVE Oscar DID hear her screaming? Now that's tricky . . .

<modsnip>

If the killer had silently followed the victim into the bathroom and gunned her down in silence while she was sitting on the toilet, it's still premeditated murder.

Dead body. Admitted killer. No provocation. Killer is aggressor.

And this is the killer's story.

What we are seeing at the trial is the level of embellishments and lies being put forth by the killer. The more he lies, the longer his sentence will be.

 

[BlueShoe]

I found OP testimony "heart wrenching"

As human beings we empathize (to a greater or lesser extent) when we hear of fellow human beings in dire circumstance.

I could imagine his fear and dread... terror...total darkness and on his stumps he would be as vulnerable as a small child... I picture a child rather than a 6ft adult.

And afterwards.... I can imagine more terror, confusion and the horror of seeing what he had done.

People can get right into hearing, seeing, reading fictional description .. and feel emotion and cry themselves (over fictional events). Listening to Oscar was far more that a fictional description it was real and VERY moving. (for me)

I imagine an adult Oscar, who, even if terrified, should know better. If he does not, there is a price to pay. A tragic situation, but he is not an innocent child who stumbled into it.

 

[MeeBee]

With all due respect, I do not believe that extreme emotional outbursts and crying/wailing constitute genuine sincerity. :truce::Yes, he looks remorseful but the main questions is WHY? Is it grief, regret, possible loss of life he got accustomed to or just a result of proper coaching? Who knows? I do not see Reeva's parents, who lost their child, showing emotional outbursts, using green buckets and generally behaving like they want attention and pity. But I am no behavioral expert, is there any psychologist or psychiatrist on the board, who could interpret OP's behaviour?

I don't doubt the tears are in some small part for himself, the life he's losing due to his tragic and horrible mistake. I think there's genuine grief, guilt, all of that. I think if the tears were all for himself he wouldn't have sounded so pained. His girlfriend didn't just die, he killed her because of the grave and stupid choices he made. I don't know how anyone can get over it. He probably replays it in his mind every single day. If he had just done one or two things differently Reeva would still be here. It's incredible how quickly everything can change. One minute you're happy in bed with your girlfriend, all these amazing possibilities. The next thing you know she's dead in your arms, her head and arm blasted off and you pulled the trigger.

I'm ready for the tomatoes. I don't really care anymore. I'm feeling completely gutted today.

 

[Rumpole]

BBM: The State's case is that he unlawfully and intentionally killed a person--Reeva. I haven't heard a "version," what have I missed?

I don't know how the State can prove what was in someone's brain or how they can prove what witnesses heard without a tape recording. If witnesses are not believed, then why put them on the stand? Does possible witness lying count as "reasonable doubt?"

He has already lied under oath when he denied shooting out the sunroof of the car unless you believe that Samantha lied under oath.

Why wouldn't he lie to keep himself out of jail for 25 years? He has everything to lose. He has come up with a "reasonable" explanation for his actions--that he is terrified of intruders and he thought she was an intruder. We will see if his story stays intact or not. Nel has not gotten started with him yet.

I guess you missed the memo

The State contends that OP is lying. He never thought there was an intruder. He fired at the door KNOWING that Reeva was in there.

YES you can certainly chose to not believe a witness (including the defendant). That is usually covered in Jury instructions. You give testimony weight according to how you perceive the credibility, accuracy etc of a witness. You can reject some or all of a witness's testimony. If the Judge thinks that OP is lying to avoid jail.. she will discount his testimony. She has to be sure it is untrue, though if she is to reject his version as completely discredited. She has to be SURE that the State's version is true before accepting that, and any reasonable alternative explanation is sufficient to counter "Beyond Reasonable doubt"

You can not say with certainty that OP lied about Sunroof incident.

A giggly 17 year old fb bffwb who has been dumped is not somebody whose evidence I would give much weight to.
Darren Fresco? I would not believe about anything.. he was caught lying on the stand after a plea bargain to tell the truth :floorlaugh:

 

[wb180]

Man, if I only knew back then that OP/Baba was planning to say Reeva was awake when he woke up then we didn't have to go through all silly arguments about how long the food was disgested/decomposing inside Reeva's stomach!

 

[east2west]

Manipulative, arrogant, immature and most importantly of all A LIAR.

Imo, he stopped maturing emotionally around the age of 15 yrs old. Something seems off or stunted regarding his emotional age vs his physical age. It's as if he stopped maturing mentally in his early teen years but continued to age physically.

JMOO

ETA: redundant sentences.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[liesbeth]

http://www.linguisticstatementanalysis.com/SOTM/Pistorius.pdf

Linguistic Statement analysis of Oscar Pistorius' bail statement:

Based solely on the objective analysis of the statement&#8217;s content , I can conclude it was based upon events that actually happened but that are being distorted, misrepresented and manipulated to create an inaccurate image of what really happened.

 

[nastasya]

Ah no. No other reason I used the phrase other than: falling over oneself to make bizarre, weird things fit with lack of evidence (State) - fiction

What is known so far from all evidence (though it initially sounds incredulous) (Oscar's) - truth

That was all.

The killer's "truth" is that he was up at 3:00 am talking with his girlfriend.

His girlfriend went into the bathroom to pee, and he almost immediately followed her into the bathroom and shot her four times through the toilet door.

Killer's "truth" is he intentionally fired his gun 4 times, knowing he was targeting a person behind the toilet door.

 

[nastasya]

Please forgive me if I do this wrong or if this has already been posted on this forum. I did try to read through all the threads, but it is possible I missed it.

Here's an interesting post about the law in South Africa with specific reference to the OP trial:


So the case comes down to credibility. Will the judge and her two assessors believe that Oscar truly thought his life was in danger?

Of course the judge isn't going to believe the killer believed his life was in danger.

Somebody who feels vulnerable and believes their life is in danger does not go out of their way to move towards the danger in the next room.

Somebody who is sleeping in a house with another person and hears that person using the toilet doesn't grab a gun and then shoot them four times.

The judge and the assessors are not idiots.

 

[G.bng]

No way in hell could you mistake his wailing for a female. The pitch was much deeper. And if he's judged unfit to testify because he can't speak without bawling every minute, then do us all a favour and stick him in a padded cell. He can't get let off this just because he can't speak! Of course he can speak. He's choosing not to, and he's choosing not to at the most convenient times.

Aha... but didn't you know that's done and dusted, he's already dealt with that. It was a one-off type of scream... not repeatable, inimitable. In testimony he said he had never screamed that way before so we'll just have to believe he did once!

 

[liesbeth]

Of course the judge isn't going to believe the killer believed his life was in danger.

Somebody who feels vulnerable and believes their life is in danger does not go out of their way to move towards the danger in the next room.

Somebody who is sleeping in a house with another person and hears that person using the toilet doesn't grab a gun and then shoot them four times.

The judge and the assessors are not idiots.

Indeed.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Sorry, but I cannot find any of Oscars testimony heart wrenching at all.

Even his sobbing etc was a show of grief yes...but it was only for his own loss....I cant work out why when he was relating the event, in detail, that he failed to tell us baout how he used the bat to pry panel out. The bat guy indicated that Oscar used the end of the bat to pry off panels ie the one that fell inside the loo and I would have predicted this allowed to put his hands around larger panel and pull it out. So panel is out, big view of toilet now and all he sees is the key on floor......NOT that he saw Reeva slumped on the floor nor did he burst into blubber when telling us this part, which I believe would have been an enormous trigger to crack him up......he kept reciting the tale about leaning over getting key...where are the marks on his gut from splintered wood? He only tells us it is Reeva when he is leaning over her body?
Like he didnt want to actually include her in the events of the evening at all..very offhand about everything that night ie relationship wise.

Whats the bet he tried to make her say she wouldnt do certain things in her contract ie male mags sports strip off stuff and she sadi no freaking way waht are you are a control freak?? Freak.

He says he kicked at the door...1 bang...then he ran back to room to scream help help help and got bat and ran back to toilet and hit door...first hurt his hand against door jamb...he hit 3 more times. So there are the four bangs...but the timing between the foot on door bang and the three others would be way longer than the bangs heard on the morning.

 

[Rumpole]

I think that the evidence that will be the best evidence as to who was screaming will be evidence around the time line. Especially times confirmed by phone records.

People can be reluctant to believe that OP can "scream like a woman"... although that can never be totally discredited as not being possible under such extreme conditions as occurred at the time of the shooting... However, if the time of the shots is established (which it is in my mind) and the time of the screams is established as after that, then the screams were NOT Reeva. She was incapable of screaming after the shots. The State concede that point. The screams were OP unless there is some woman out there who happened to be passing by the estate randomly screaming that night.

 

[luvmygarden]

I'm not even going to guess OP's relationship with Reeva from a psychological point of view, because having not ever spoken with or seen Reeva and OP it would be a guess.
That's a leap too far for me in such a serious trial.

With regard to physical harm, I've yet to see or hear any evidence of domestic violence whatsoever. No witnesses have testified to anything of this nature and no marks have been found on Reeva's body to suggest this. This we know as fact, it is not guesswork.

It can be agreed we've heard allegations of firing out of a sunroof and a restaurant, and possession of illegal bullets, but none of these suggest anything other than improper conduct.

Just some bruises and a few bullet holes.

 

[wb180]

I think that the evidence that will be the best evidence as to who was screaming will be evidence around the time line. Especially times confirmed by phone records.

People can be reluctant to believe that OP can "scream like a woman"... although that can never be totally discredited as not being possible under such extreme conditions as occurred at the time of the shooting... However, if the time of the shots is established (which it is in my mind) and the time of the screams is established as after that, then the screams were NOT Reeva. She was incapable of screaming after the shots. The State concede that point. The screams were OP unless there is some woman out there who happened to be passing by the estate randomly screaming that night.

Yes it pretty unfortunate that Baba impliedly told us that he can't scream like a woman anymore because it was a one time event.

I really believed in Roux when he said he will show us that Baba can scream like a woman when he was trying to discredit a witness!

 

[G.bng]

Does anyone know whether or not the judge in this case will be required to provide a reasoning for her verdict?

Yes. A fully reasoned judgement. Reasons for every conclusion she comes to as she works through the laws so that if it goes to appeal the appeal court can work through her reasoning and see where she did or didn't go wrong.

 

[kaos]

I find it bizarre that some people don't believe that OP's wailing can't be put on. We see it on tv and the movies every single day when actors do it so it is possible to feign it. Even some of the worst of the acting community (any of those on reality tv shows) can come up with fake histrionics. We see 'faux grief' on tv most every week when a noted celebrity dies (Princess Diana, Michael Jackson being the most memorable). Men will easily shed tears on a regular basis when their sports team lose or if somebody's had the tenacity to scratch their beloved car. Hell, we even take part in it on discussion forums when things like "tears are literally streaming down my face" are posted. Yet it just isn't possible that the man on the stand whose been coached in one way or another all of his life, couldn't be coached in how to behave on the stand?

A media savvy guy whose grown up in the spotlight and is very much in control of his public persona? Even Reeva knew that she had to display herself a certain way when she was stepping out with OP.

And as for it not meaning much in regards to adding/taking away from his guilt or innocence. It very much matters in this court where the Judge has to take into account the accused's remorse if it comes down to sentencing. Even if he is found guilty I don't actually see any jail time as it seems his saintly actions he mentioned during his testimony will also be taken into account as previous good character.

I only wish that at some point one of Reeva's family gain the strength to shout out in court to OP's family that it's Reeva who is dead and it's her who their tears should be for.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes. A fully reasoned judgement. Reasons for every conclusion she comes to as she works through the laws so that if it goes to appeal the appeal court can work through her reasoning and see where she did or didn't go wrong.

I imagine that will take a while to complete. Weeks, maybe months?