Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Feynman]

With all due respect, I disagree. Sociopaths and the criminally minded in general tend to cannily avoid taking responsibility as active agents, often using passive constructions to frame their deeds. Just as anecdote, I recall a murderer who had choked his victim to death saying something to the effect of he "reacted" to HER prodding him until "she was taken by death." OP talks about when "the tragedy happened." Accidental or not, he caused the tragedy.

The reasoning here appears to go like this: OP seems to avoid responsibility for his actions, using the passive voice etc. So do sociopaths and criminals. In fact, there was a murderer who did X, where X is a very bad. Therefore OP is a sociopath, or at least criminally minded, and possibly capable of X if given enough rope.

I hope the flaw in reasoning here is clear.

 

[minor4th]

Why would he have lied in his bail application and said RS was asleep if in fact, as he stated yesterday, that not only was she awake when he woke up all hot and sweaty but that she had not slept at all and asked him "couldn't you sleep Baba?", all before he went to move the fans, close the sliding doors and pull the curtains(now can't remember closing the blinds)? After which it not only wasn't pitch black that he couldn't see, but in fact OP says he saw her jeans laying on the floor and picked them up to put over the led light that was bothering him and that's when "everything changed", iirc.

This is the only thing he said in his bail application about Reeva being asleep:

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...r-pistorius-trial-affidavit-bail-hearing-full

He said nothing about whether she was asleep or awake or whatever when he heard the noise in the bathroom. The implication is that she was not asleep because he was telling her to call the police.

In his testimony he did not say that Reeva had never slept. He said she was awake and spoke to him at 3:00 when he went to move the fans. That is not a change in his statements or an inconsistency.

It was pitch dark in the bedroom - except for an LED light that was blinking. He grabbed some jeans to cover it. How is that a change in his story? It's more detail but it's not inconsistent.

 

[nastasya]

But there must be a point where questioning crosses over into interrogation and torture. I believe that incessant questioning is an aspect of torture technique.

Another great barometer of the state of the defense case - portray killer as the victim.

Thank you for providing such a stellar example.

The less credible the killer's testimony, the more likely it will be that he is being portrayed as the victim, and the prosecutor doing his job is the bad guy.

Upping the killer's victim status to torture victim is a new standard reflecting the killer's horrendous day on the witness stand in which he denied his own sworn alibi.

 

[rachael123]

Gotta love the leg.I thought I was seeing things but he did it again:winner:

Love Nel's facial expressions, and his silent laughter!

and the leg :blushing:

 

[Duchy]

Um, I'm not sure I can listen to Pistorius testimony now... but I think he got some position's wrong compared to the statements.

And not only the fan part debate, which I listened to, where he completely blamed different positions on police ineptitude/sabotage rather than his mistake or an untruth.


I have no idea what Pistorius is saying here. It doesn't sound like honest testimony: “I’ve been sitting here and telling the truth, and some of it would be from the truth, and what the state has furnished me, with a mixture of what I can remember. But, on some of the points, and on some of the things, it could be a reconstruction. If I look at the time, I can’t remember how much time, certain things took me that evening. But I can see from the time of the phone calls that are being made that people’s testimony and statements, not just the statements that the state called, but the hundred and something witnesses that the State said they have; I read most of those and all of the statements and that show I have reconstructed some time. Some of the things I remember, that I’ve spoken about myself, that I’ve spoke about what I remembered…in contact of information I have.”

:lookingitup::abnormal::crosseyed::crosseyed:

 

[Cher352]

Just finished watching the afternoon session.

OP is a mess. To me he seems to have a word comprehension problem. Nel asks one thing but OP trying to answer something different with long drawn out answers that never seem to provide anything but more confusion and give Nel more ammunition.

I heard once that if a defendant ever takes the stand they should try to keep your answer as short as possible, like yes, no or I don't recall. Either OP's lawyers didn't prep him for trial or he didn't listen to what they had to say.

 

[Val1]

It's not often that I praise the British Law and government but Thank Goodness we have pre trial laws about what can be said or shown in the media and online.

This case has been full of discrepancy's from bad or incorrect reporting in the Media the recently enquiry into phone hacking etc has made it very clear this will be stopped. I was astonished to find out that even the SA police had leaked things.....no wonder there is such corruption.

I was astonished when OP said that one of the police came up to him and identified himself as a friend of OP's family and would basically take care of him.

 

[supernovaNic]

WHY did Reeva take her phone with her to the toilet?

 

[minor4th]

Are there any limits/norms in regards how long a cross examination can go on?

I am sure Nel COULD go on for weeks. But there must be a point where questioning crosses over into interrogation and torture. I believe that incessant questioning is an aspect of torture technique. There often comes a time when some people being interrogated will say anything just to make it stop.

Besides... I, myself, find watching and listening to Nel to be torture. I find him to be a nasty unpleasant little man to listen to. I do not have any concerns about what Nel might achieve. Nothing, would be my guess. I just want to make the torture stop and get on and see what other witnesses Roux has to offer. Like any torture victim... I just want Nel to STOP!! :banghead:

The lead questioning of OP was only about 2 days, taking early adjournments into consideration, and half of that was background and life history which I imagine is not open to cross examination. So... about a day of evidence stuff? Will the cross take about the same time? Nel done by the end of the next day?

Yeah, I do believe that much of what Nel did today was simply try to make OP as uncomfortable as possible and inflict psychic pain through mockery, sarcasm, badgering, arguing, and false assumptions. There's no other explanation for much of it because it certainly wasn't substantive or informative of anything.

There's no limit to cross examination and it's often much longer than direct examination. I hope that what we saw today was just Day One tactics to shake things up and that the remainder of his cross examination will be more substantive and less confusing. If he's got some evidence to show OP's lying, let's hear it. If he can counter OP's account, then put it to him and watch him squirm - but that's not what today was. Today was just bullying.

 

[Gavel Rash]

WHY did Reeva take her phone with her to the toilet?

& locked the door...Million dollar question. And what did she have time to type before she was shot? IPhones leave the message there waiting even if you dont finish.

The noise he heard...text tapping? and knowing she was going to inform someone of his terrorising her?

 

[Gavel Rash]

Oscar: I shot in accidental defence to an imagined intruder hoping to text me to death?:scared:

 

[fox1lady]

No he didn't. He believed there was an intruder and he gave all the reasons why he thought that.

Well how can he then claim that he didn't intend to shoot at anyone? Surely if he thought there were intruders and he has a gun in his hand, pulls the trigger, the intention is to shoot. How can he claim that it went off accidentally?

 

[Viper]

Don't know why he just didn't say cops must have removed fan plug from ext. lead and plugged clippers in.

Firstly, because it was a fact and he knew it was an undeniable fact because he knew that the police forensic teams had not tampered with the cords and shaver and fan, all of those things were exactly where he had left them.

Secondly, because Mr. Nel scared the carp out of him with the detectives finding this evidence. So he was shocked and he didn't have a script memorized about what to say and not to say about it. So he spouted off some of the scripts that he did have memorized that have nothing to do with the issue. The monkeys in his head were peddling as fast as they could but to no avail!

 

[Cherwell]

I, myself, find watching and listening to Nel to be torture. I find him to be a nasty unpleasant little man to listen to.

Funnily enough, that's exactly how I feel about Pistorius.

 

[soozieqtips]

Another great barometer of the state of the defense case - portray killer as the victim.

Thank you for providing such a stellar example.

The less credible the killer's testimony, the more likely it will be that he is being portrayed as the victim, and the prosecutor doing his job is the bad guy.

Upping the killer's victim status to torture victim is a new standard reflecting the killer's horrendous day on the witness stand in which he denied his own sworn alibi.

Apparently it's not fair to rigorously grill the murderer because it makes him upset and then he cries. He should be treated gently and respectfully and not be made to look at photographic evidence of what he did because, oh, that's so mean. Nel mustn't force the murderer to say "Yes. I killed Reeva Steenkamp" because the murderer has already helpfully admitted "I made a mistake"... which supposedly means the same thing as "I killed Reeva Steenkamp".

Roux made an innocent witness cry, someone who hadn't murdered anyone, and someone who was only giving evidence because Reeva Steenkamp had been blasted to death in a toilet. When Roux behaved badly, he was commended for 'doing his job'... but when Nel does his job, it amounts to nastiness, petulance and torture. His job is to pick holes in OP's affidavit, not wipe his nose when he's crying.

 

[Denvergirl]

I'm following this case loosely and am new to this board, so forgive me if this has been brought up, but I find the exchange he had with her when he awoke odd and something is missing.

Given that we know:
1) He has a history of getting very upset over little things.
2) He is on very high alert to intruders in his home.
3) He asked her to bring in the fans and lock the sliding door before she went to sleep.

Here's what doesn't add up for me. If you are that guy, and you wake up in the middle of the night/early morning to discover that she did not do as you asked and secure the sliding door - wouldn't you think his immediate response would be frustration or anger that she didn't do it and left them vulnerable to intruders? Instead she asks if he can't sleep and he says "no I can't."

That is the main piece that seems off to me. And the piece you all have mentioned - why locked in the toilet with her phone....of course.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Oscars abhorrent distaste for the smell of blood & its memeory, his clothes with blood on them- get them off!, his annoyance at Reeva touching his neck, His blaming others offset guilt, his annoyance at a LED light, his accentuated listening and smelling, his imagined stalkers, the minute attention to details totally unrelated to the topic, his failure to maintain relationships, his unsettling over inflated belief in his achievements and exalted standing making him a superman above other people, The Bladerunner!

Delusional. Psychotic, perhaps transient...more likely already showing early signs of a deteriorating mental state.

 

[sorrell skye]

He actually says 'I'll try not to lie, milady. As I said..' at 2:19 in the link below and you're right that it is in the same area as his religion...but that's not the only time he says something peculiar. He'll try not to lie and he'll tell the truth - as much as he can remember. It just seems really weird to qualify such statements.

You'll either tell the truth or you won't. End of. MOO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rb_KaqfS6Y

BBM

That's exactly what he said.

"I'll try not to lie."

I've been watching the testimony that I missed this morning, and OP absolutely stated: "I'll try not to lie."

1:07:26 at this link:


Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 9 April 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

The sound is very good on the above video, plus I'm listening with my noise reduction headphones, so there's no mistake as to what he said.

A truthful person has no need to say "I'll try not to lie."

But someone with something to hide has every reason to say the above.

 

[Viper]

I found it interesting, too .. and interesting why he even made reference to them being 'wheelchair friendly', why is that relevant .. he even went as far as to say he had them put in, but I can't really see that as the door surround in the bedroom already appears to have been designed for a double door in the first place

OP has never used a wheelchair; he was an Olympic runner. :facepalm: This is just OP using his physical deformity to sway the court. If he had purposely designed the home to be "wheelchair friendly" for him, where is the elevator to get him up to his bedroom?

 

[Gavel Rash]

With that he is in fact truly

THE BULLET IN THE CHAMBER......>>>>>>>> and he went off.