Trial Discussion Thread #20 - 14.04.08, Day 18

[emmavoberry]

Yes. Should be pretty obvious the defense has a strategy and OP is tailoring his testimony and demeanor to it. I don't recall the emphasis on "protecting Reeva" in the transcript of his first official statement/account to police. And taking the prosthetics off--and recalling it all with a somewhat hysterical, overwrought tone. It sure appears that his case could be made to fit the criteria for incapacity as per SA law and the defense would be negligent if they did not use it. As I understand this defense, his lawyer won't have to prove he was ANYTHING all that severe, the condition was temporary (except for youth), and brought on by circumstances of that night and his reaction mentally. Now I don't know if involuntary manslaughter kind of verdict would give him even less time or the opportunity for no time and probation, and exactly what other mitigating factors the judge can take into account. But you Gavel Rash, present a strong case for his lawyers to be going for incapacity. I mean how could it be disproved? All the elements required seem to be there because it doesn't look like all that much is needed. I'll go a step further. I bet OP was aware of the law either at the time when as he says in passive voice "the tragedy happened," or pretty quickly after.

 

[supernovaNic]

Why does Oscar answer something like "Yes My Lady, we had dinner at 7:00p.m." Why does he address that to the judge when the attorney is asking the question?

 

[kaos]

Why does Oscar answer something like "Yes My Lady, we had dinner at 7:00p.m." Why does he address that to the judge when the attorney is asking the question?

They all do it as there testimony is addressed to the judge.

 

[emmavoberry]

He sure is plugging the holes. Even the scream--he amped up that part, acting out himself screaming because the defense can plant the idea that if screams heard, was Oscar, not Reeva. He's not just a runner; he's an actor. But then he has got to be, regardless of whether or not he shot Reeva intentionally.

 

[K.T]

I am not sure how much credibility this article has but it shows that OP's performance may be interpreted differently by a psychologist (I hope it is OK to post the link) http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-performance-may-prove-mental-state/

snip

Thanks!
That’s a good article about if Pistorius as a narcissistic personality disorder.
Also, the link to listened to the radio interview of a forensic psychologist Leonard Carr was also fascinating.
(Sorry moderators about quoting directly from blogs before, if this radio interview quote is inappropriate please delete.)

Radio Jacaranda Interview: Clinical psychologist Leonard Carr gives his professional opinion as to whether Oscar's testimony on Monday was indeed sincere or all just a big act.

http://www.jacarandafm.com/post/oscars-tears-for-reeva-sincere-or-fake/

Leonard Carr: “I would say he [Pistorius] was emotionally superficial. I’ve done extensive analysis of the SMS’s of Oscar and Reeva, and that’s Oscar in his own words, being spontaneous. Think he is a very vain person who is image driven, you see he always looks very shiny, very impeccable, and that’s really covering up a deep sense of shame. And one can understand that on the one hand he’s this person with a disability, on the other hand when he takes of his clothes at night; mean he is an athlete who is a celebrity, and successful and Olympics and everything, when he takes of his clothes he is a person with a disability. He has to face to the fact he doesn’t have complete legs and that for a very vain person must be an incredibly disabling, an emotionally disabling feature.

If you think about how conscious people are of slight body defects and issues…and here is a man who whole life is centered about image and he’s got quite a serious problem. Then there is the issues he was abandoned by his mother through death, he’s estranged by his father, I mean, the fact that his father does not attend the trial.”

“Then look at the fact he seems to have anger and impulse control problems. And something that occurred to me listening to his evidence about his prosthetic legs, he says when his prosthetic legs are on he feels whole and he feels fine about them. When he takes them off he feels embarrassed about them and covers them up. This is a man who is used to external prosthetic devices to give him a sense of wholeness, a sense of identity and a sense of power. Now when you think about his relationship with a gun, it seems to like another sort of prosthetic extension of himself.”

 

[G.bng]

I don't see how the state has any case at all for murder at all if they're not going to give some kind of conclusive evidence about what the first gunshots were that the Stipps heard. We haven't even gotten a theory - much less conclusive evidence.

BIB This has been already been discussed here ad infinitum. Under SA law "intentionality" can be proved by a technicality, i.e. that even if OP shot believing it was a burglar hiding in the reduced space behind the toilet door, even if he didn't "intend" to kill the burglar in the normal sense of the word, the Judge could find that it was reasonable to expect OP to have foreseen that shooting 4 times through a door could possibly cause death in which case murder would still stand, depending on other evidence, with or without the aggravating circumstance of premeditation. And don't forget OP passed a competency test for a firearms license.

(Obviously there are other findings the judge will have to make at the same time, e.g. was it reasonable force in all of the circumstances, was it lawful or unlawful, etc., to reach a full and final judgement.)

 

[G.bng]

He was supporting himself with the wall

IDK how unsteady OP is on his stumps but I have watched a couple of YT videos of people with the same as him and they are not that wobbly so it could be he has exaggerated it a bit. I have also seen young decorators on stilts painting ceilings and high walls and they had just been balancing like that a couple of years while OP has being doing it 26.

 

[minor4th]

BIB This has been already been discussed here ad infinitum. Under SA law "intentionality" can be proved by a technicality, i.e. that even if OP shot believing it was a burglar hiding in the reduced space behind the toilet door, even if he didn't "intend" to kill the burglar in the normal sense of the word, the Judge could find that it was reasonable to expect OP to have foreseen that shooting 4 times through a door could possibly cause death in which case murder would still stand, depending on other evidence, with or without the aggravating circumstance of premeditation. And don't forget OP passed a competency test for a firearms license.



(Obviously there are other findings the judge will have to make at the same time, e.g. was it reasonable force in all of the circumstances, was it lawful or unlawful, etc., to reach a full and final judgement.)

Yeah it's been discussed but that's an incorrect explanation of the law.

 

[Val1]

I'm waiting for the witnesses to say there was an argument going on in another house, perhaps that's why Nel didn't call the nearest neighbours?

Could it perhaps be because they wanted to testify not to any noises because they didn't hear anything out of the ordinary from OP's house, but as character witnesses(which apparently isn't allowed in SA) because they thought of OP as a great national hero and they were proud to have him as a neighbour(increased property value living in an exclusive area with a national hero, sure don't want to endanger that!) and a "friend" ... oh and those loud parties he occasionally had with doors slamming and screaming women around his jacuzzi, what can you expect from a young lad eh wot? :moo:

 

[G.bng]

Mark my words, he's going to walk or get off very lightly with a non-custodial sentence. Watched his testimony yesterday/today, they are certainly plugging holes.

I remember reading somewhere here as to why he didn't just push the panic button and he did address this today....can't remember the exact details but it had to do with the batteries being down.

There were other questions that were similar and he is addressing them one at a time.

Yes, he was plugging the holes one by one, broken glass, softee guard dogs, no alarm, bedroom door... But I hope the judge will see how "designed" it all was, and it goes to show that while some posters have felt a lot of these things were irrelevant and/or unimportant, the defence sure didn't think that otherwise they would not have worked so hard to address all of them!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ius-howls-recalls-moment-shot-girlfriend-dead

From today:
And I sat over Reeva and I cried and I don't know how long I was there for.
She wasn't breathing."

Why did OP much later still have his fingers in R.'s oral cavity (downstairs in presence of Dr. Stipp)??

 

[nastasya]

BIB This has been already been discussed here ad infinitum. Under SA law "intentionality" can be proved by a technicality, i.e. that even if OP shot believing it was a burglar hiding in the reduced space behind the toilet door, even if he didn't "intend" to kill the burglar in the normal sense of the word, the Judge could find that it was reasonable to expect OP to have foreseen that shooting 4 times through a door could possibly cause death in which case murder would still stand, depending on other evidence, with or without the aggravating circumstance of premeditation. And don't forget OP passed a competency test for a firearms license.

(Obviously there are other findings the judge will have to make at the same time, e.g. was it reasonable force in all of the circumstances, was it lawful or unlawful, etc., to reach a full and final judgement.)

Let's take a moment and leave the killer's delusional fantasyland.

It's clearly never reasonable to grab a gun and start firing at a toilet stall when you're sharing your home with somebody who got up to pee in the middle of the night.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Could it perhaps be because they wanted to testify not to any noises because they didn't hear anything out of the ordinary from OP's house, but as character witnesses(which apparently isn't allowed in SA) because they thought of OP as a great national hero and they were proud to have him as a neighbour(increased property value living in an exclusive area with a national hero, sure don't want to endanger that!) and a "friend" ... oh and those loud parties he occasionally had with doors slamming and screaming women around his jacuzzi, what can you expect from a young lad eh wot? :moo:

We know, that OP's home was several times noticed/visited from police because of DV. No one is talking of that; I feel despair! :tantrum:

 

[nastasya]

Yeah it's been discussed but that's an incorrect explanation of the law.

How about this for an accurate explanation of the law:

It is illegal to shoot and kill somebody.

There are no exceptions made for pursuing a retreating, non-threatening person and killing them.

 

[luvmygarden]

He was supporting himself with the wall

But how could he get out quick if he had to?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Wonder if someone will do a comparison of the various versions of events (albeit it is the same general story of intruder and fear - have to give that to OP!)

I don't envy the book authors of "Behind the door" B. Bateman and M. Wiener ...!!

 

[wb180]

He was supporting himself with the wall

From the testimony he was also supporting himself while walking along that corridor into the bathroom - so I have no idea why he didn't wear his legs if he is so fearful.

 

[steveml]

Could it perhaps be because they wanted to testify not to any noises because they didn't hear anything out of the ordinary from OP's house, but as character witnesses(which apparently isn't allowed in SA) because they thought of OP as a great national hero and they were proud to have him as a neighbour(increased property value living in an exclusive area with a national hero, sure don't want to endanger that!) and a "friend" ... oh and those loud parties he occasionally had with doors slamming and screaming women around his jacuzzi, what can you expect from a young lad eh wot? :moo:

I cannot accept that a neighbour would cover up the murder of a young woman next door just to be recognised. That neighbour may have young female relatives themselves.

It sounds like a suggestion someone would make if they were quite worried about a close neighbour testifying.

 

[Whiteorchids]

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!

Sam Taylor OP longtime ex girlfriend who testified at trial said his screams sounding like woman is untrue, he sounds like a man.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...us-kept-gun-him-all-time-ex-girlfriend-n46746

 

[zwiebel]

Is this the thread we're using for today's hearing? There's a new one, but it's closed.