Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[minor4th]

According to the defense. Those witnesses have not yet testified to that fact. If they do, then it may mean something. If they don't, then like the non-existing dog that Roux tried to use to trip up Mrs. Stipp, it will show that the defense is once again being dishonest.

MOO

According to those witnesses' written statements that were referenced by Roux in open court. Nel is not exactly a shrinking violet when he believes something is being misrepresented - his silence suggests he accepts as true what Roux was putting to the accused.

You may wish it was a non-existing dog but it's not. These were state's witnesses who the defense was not even allowed to talk to until the state rested it's case. Now why do you think the state put them on their witness list without intending to call them? Perhaps to keep the defense from fully preparing their case with the benefit of corroborating witnesses? That's what I think.

Those are the desperate tactics of a prosecution that has no real evidence to support their charges.

 

[MeeBee]

There is a method to Nel's madness. He would not have gotten anywhere with OP if he had not done all of those crazy detours and antics first, in order to shake OP free from his memorized answers.

If he had just calmly walked up and began asking about the 'correct' issues, OP would have used his memorized scripted answers and seemed credible. But Nel came at him so quickly from so many surprising places, OP was off balance and we saw the holes in his stories.

I honestly don't think he got anywhere with OP. His questions are all over the place and, even after clarifying them, are hard to follow. They hardly covered any ground today, though I think he had good points to make.

 

[BritsKate]

It is not necessary to mock and ridicule Oscar in order to show respect and sorrow for Reeva.

I quite agree but many of us have neither ridiculed nor mocked. Expressing disbelief and doubting sincerity/credibility is very different in my opinion. Like my incredulity that he got her birthday wrong - which I hope Nel calls him on.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree that there's a difference - Mrs. Stipp was clearly lying (or she was tricked by the police into signing a statement that they fudged) and Oscar's was an in-artful use of words that has now been clarified - no reason for him to contradict himself and give a different version now. It's not like he totally made up seeing a person that he didn't see.

Yes, it was a mistake to shoot through the door - he mistakenly believed it to be an intruder. That ain't murder. Is he minimizing it at times? YES, of course he is.

i think it is also fair to say that, as op managed to kill a person on the other side of the closed/locked door [without entering said room], it is then reasonable for op to assume that an intruder also has a gun on the other side of that door... it is equally possible that they could shoot op dead through it too.

although this doesn't seem to form any part of the op defence.

 

[steveml]

I'm surprised Nel is pursuing the fan issue so much, as the photograph of Van Resburg kneeling down at the side of the bed looking at the fan cables didn't look great.

If the iphone/ipad wasn't plugged in there, there would be two free sockets for two fans.

Again, we're back to the issue of what exactly was moved at the crime scene.

 

[minor4th]

i think it is also fair to say that, as op managed to kill a person on the other side of the closed/locked door [without entering said room], it is then reasonable to assume that if you think a person has a gun on the other side of that door... it is equally possible that they could shoot you dead through it too.

although this doesn't seem to form any part of the op defence.

I think that is his defense. He said he thought the intruder was about to attack him

 

[TorisMom003]

According to those witnesses' written statements that were referenced by Roux in open court. Nel is not exactly a shrinking violet when he believes something is being misrepresented - his silence suggests he accepts as true what Roux was putting to the accused.

You may wish it was a non-existing dog but it's not. These were state's witnesses who the defense was not even allowed to talk to until the state rested it's case. Now why do you think the state put them on their witness list without intending to call them? Perhaps to keep the defense from fully preparing their case with the benefit of corroborating witnesses? That's what I think.

Those are the desperate tactics of a prosecution that has no real evidence to support their charges.

Then the defense will be calling them to the stand, yes? And if they don't? What does that mean then?

Nel is now on his cross of OP and will address with him anything that OP testified to during direct that Nel has a problem with. It will not surprise me at all for Nel to bring this up as well as the other things that have been covered so far. Nel is just getting started.

I'm also not sure why it is difficult for someone to put something at the end of their post to identify that it is that person's opinion instead of fact. Typically when things are stated as fact then a link is to be expected. If something is not stated as fact then it needs to be noted that it is one's opinion.

MOO

 

[DebinGA]

IMO the phrase "Give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself" describes OP on the stand. He is not doing himself any favors, much like many other defendants that have taken the stand in their own defense.

MOO

And "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

 

[nastasya]

I totally agree with the line at the end.

As much as me and Mrs Stipp fell out I've never laughed and wished harm upon her.

Om a truly serious note though, there are a great many posts with some really valid points.
I read the post and am about to thank the person for that useful post, but I can't because there's quite often a vitriolic line at the end.
So by thanking them, I would be agreeing with the whole post. It does get to the point where you just don't read them.

There's only so many ways you can say you hate somebody or you wish revenge, or you wish them locked up for life, but hey, we all get the point.

Repeating it on every post doesn't make it any truer, and certainly doesn't make it a better read or a more useful post.

As killer's story continues to crumble even further expect more posts criticizing other forum members. Happens all the time.

First criticize police... then prosecution... then witnesses... <modsnip>

But never, never, never, never, never, never, ever say anything critical about the killer. :facepalm:

As somebody mentioned yesterday, this another indicator defense case has jumped the shark.

 

[minor4th]

I'm surprised Nel is pursuing the fan issue so much, as the photograph of Van Resburg kneeling down at the side of the bed looking at the fan cables didn't look great.

If the iphone/ipad wasn't plugged in there, there would be two free sockets for two fans.

Again, we're back to the issue of what exactly was moved at the crime scene.

Exactly what I was thinking - I mean, that's an instance where we have an actual photograph of the police manipulating the chords for the fan.

I don't see that Nel gained anything today - nothing of substance anyway to suggest that OP's account is fabricated and that there was an argument that led to an intentional shooting.

All Nel can do is sort of mock Oscar and play word games and engage in trickery to try to get him rattled, perhaps hoping that will be perceived as lacking credibility.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm surprised Nel is pursuing the fan issue so much, as the photograph of Van Resburg kneeling down at the side of the bed looking at the fan cables didn't look great.

If the iphone/ipad wasn't plugged in there, there would be two free sockets for two fans.

Again, we're back to the issue of what exactly was moved at the crime scene.

And before the police arrived when OP and Ms. Stander went upstairs. Wonder what all was moved around then? And how exactly can the defense prove that the police contaminated the crime scene but yet the numerous people in the home that were there for OP (Stander, Ms. Stander, sister, etc) didn't contaminate the crime scene themselves.

MOO

 

[Really?]

"My life is on the line. Of course I'm thinking about the consequences of my answers."

Another OP classic lol

This is the statement that got me......wth?.....where is the truth?

 

[04009margaret]

I don't either

Minor, I'm curious. If OP was your client, how would you handle today's events?

 

[MeeBee]

And before the police arrived when OP and Ms. Stander went upstairs. Wonder what all was moved around then? And how exactly can the defense prove that the police contaminated the crime scene but yet the numerous people in the home that were there for OP (Stander, Ms. Stander, sister, etc) didn't contaminate the crime scene themselves.

MOO

BBM: together?

 

[DebinGA]

I'm surprised Nel is pursuing the fan issue so much, as the photograph of Van Resburg kneeling down at the side of the bed looking at the fan cables didn't look great.

If the iphone/ipad wasn't plugged in there, there would be two free sockets for two fans.

Again, we're back to the issue of what exactly was moved at the crime scene.

OP's phone for one. Will he say how it departed his home and ended up in DT's hands? Or pull an "I don't know?"

 

[TorisMom003]

BBM: together?

According to OP's testimony today, yes they were upstairs together at one point. OP went "to get Reeva's purse, handed it to Ms. Stander, they then went downstairs together."

 

[soozieqtips]

On Wednesday morning, Pistorius told how on discovering Steenkamp in the lavatory, he tried to pick her up and felt her blood run down his back.

"I could see her arm was broken. I was on my knees and pulling her into the bathroom. I put her down softly on the carpet,” he said.

He said he tried to call for help from her phone but it had a pass code that blocked access. He said he went to get his phone and called first the estate manager, then a private ambulance service.

He said he tried to move Steenkamp downstairs, but added: "I struggled to pick Reeva up but I couldn't pick her up.
I was scared I would hurt her more.

"I didn't really know what to do.
I could see that she was struggling to breathe.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-take-responsibility-for-killing-Reeva.html

BBM 1 - what could hurt her more than a bullet to the head? Or to the hip? The arm?

BBM 2 - changing story yet again. In the affidavit she's 'slumped over but still alive"... yesterday "she wasn't breathing"... and today she was "struggling to breathe".

 

[MeeBee]

According to OP's testimony today, yes they were upstairs together at one point. OP went "to get Reeva's purse, handed it to Ms. Stander, they then went downstairs together."

Thanks, I remember him saying he went to get Reeva's ID I just missed the part where he said Mrs. Stander was with him.

 

[TorisMom003]

Thanks, I was honestly asking you, btw. I remember him saying he went to get Reeva's ID I just missed the part where he said Mrs. Stander was with him.

I missed it the first time as well and only heard it when I went back to relisten. I was surprised that it was not brought up here on WS.

 

[minor4th]

Minor, I'm curious. If OP was your client, how would you handle today's events?

Really hard to say because I have never represented a criminal defendant. It's my understanding though that Roux is not even allowed to consult with him until after he is finished with his testimony.

The way I go about things with my clients is basically - let's just get the truth out there and don't be afraid to admit an error if you've made one; be willing to accept the consequences of your own actions and hold others responsible for theirs. I've had clients who were pretty much on the wrong side of things- they had done something stupid or wrong that is going to look bad. I always try to deal with those things up front and have them acknowledge those things and show that they have learned from it.

Kind of vague, I know - but I'm just thinking if I was preparing Oscar for his testimony, I would caution him against being defensive and argumentative, to concede reasonable points and to just be honest. Very important also is for Oscar to ask for clarification if he doesn't understand the question - there were times today when it seemed like he was answering what he thought Nel was asking or even using different terminology when he would have been better off asking for clarification of the question.