Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[minor4th]

'Contamination, disturbance, tampering'. Rinse, repeat. Look, I'm trying really hard to remain respectful of differing opinions here but you said yourself just a day or two into the State's case that witnesses who didn't allow for concessions that there could be a different version of the truth were making themselves look like fools. Not verbatim, of course, but that it made their testimony suspect because they were so dogged.

Anytime he was asked about those fans he kept repeating defence memo talking points instead of actually stating what he'd done. Then he became agitated because he refused to actually answer. If it didn't hurt him, it sure as hell didn't help either because it made him seem evasive even if he isn't - it made him look like he's persecuting investigators even if he isn't - it made him appear as though he's trying to obfuscate even if he isn't.

MOO

ETA: Eventually Oscar did concede but I believe the damage was already done by that point. Or non damage, as some will have it.

Ok, I thought there was some big point made about the fans or where they were plugged in. That's what I was asking about ...

 

[emmavoberry]

Could be wrong here but I think he said he backed away rather than turned his back Would make more sense but I believe he did drop his gun. And I would still think he'd make reference to a) a sense of Reeva's presence as he goes down hall or by the time he gets to the bedroom BEFORE he turns light on b) consciousness of when, where, how (specifically) more could enter or have entertained the notion that intruder #1 was not dead.

 

[TorisMom003]

Uh, Nancy, Of course, they'd adjourn if he was crying uncontrollably, especially since we have juries and there's a potential for influencing a jury. An adjournment would be called immediately. Seems the only reason they've been doing it lately is to have OP collect himself so he can give effective testimony.

Adjourning for the day.......not just adjourning for a little while for the defendant to compose himself. Big difference. Yesterday court was adjourned for the day because of OP's crying/outburst. Today court was adjourned for a little while so OP could compose himself. The first day court of OP's testimony court was adjourned because he was tired and had not gotten enough sleep.

To bad that Reeva was not given any time to compose herself before she was shot to death.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

Well culpable homicide sounds like a done deal to me. From everything I'm hearing in the media SA has a 1% rule for culpable homicide.

What's the 1% rule?

FYI - I am more convinced of culpable homicide now that I've heard his testimony than I was before.

 

[foxbluff]

two Qs:

Am I right that today was the first day of state's cross-exam of op?

What does BIB stand for?

tia

bbm - I could infer that the rest of you don't know the answer to that question either.

<modsnip>

 

[TorisMom003]

What's the 1% rule?

FYI - I am more convinced of culpable homicide now that I've heard his testimony than I was before.

But his testimony is not complete. So what happens when/if Nel gets OP to admit to more lies? Will that not be seen as the State proving their case? Just three days on the stand, with only a little more than half a day of that being cross examination is enough?

 

[soozieqtips]

I would argue that if he can't say specifically his actions caused her death, then he hasn't really owned it. He says "mistake", "tragedy" "accident" easily, but there is absolutely no ownership in that at all. I don't see how you can argue it does. He can't even admit he pulled the trigger without obscuring in language that takes away all of his own action.

He is a long way from accepting it and owning it. He's still in a fetal position denial of his deadly actions. Clear as day, he is trying hard to escape responsibility.

The words are very important. And he finally said them.

Actually, I don't think emmavoberry said:

"But he has owned it. Why does he have to say the specific words? What difference does it make how he says it???"

I believe MeeBee said that and emma was responding to that sentence, but forgot to put it in a quote :smile:

 

[TorisMom003]

bbm - I could infer that the rest of you don't know the answer to that question either.

<modsnip>

Yes, today was the first day of OP's cross examination.

 

[Interested Bystander]

If as suggested by the SA attorney on the Sky Report that the Defence is going to be Automatism would someone kindly explain the types.

There are a number of options but it seems to me only two are possible.

There is an entry on Wikipedia about Automatism and Case Law. Can anyone explain what they the Defence are hoping to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(case_law)

Here is another link which helps understand what the Defence may be going for.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Non-insane-automatism.php

 

[04009margaret]

BBM - And he's only just started!!

This short clip about whether the prosecution is being too tough on OP is very interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-accidentally-fired-gun-times/story?id=23251260

Nancy Grace (former prosecutor) is great!!!! She says: "I can guarantee you, in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend, and then you cry on the stand - we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry".

NG did not look good there lol. She looked like she just got out of bed

 

[Gryffindor]

I think we can all agree this trial is nothing like the trials we're used to watching. Even the introduction of the evidence exhibits is different & how there introduced.

Our trials aren't televised at all in the UK

 

[TorisMom003]

I have just watched a Sky report in the UK on which a SA attorney said he thinks the Defence are going for Automatism.

If as suggested by the SA attorney on the Sky Report that the Defence is going to be Automatism would someone kindly explain the types.

There are a number of options but it seems to me only two are possible.

There is an entry on Wikipedia about Automatism and Case Law. Can anyone explain what they the Defence are hoping to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(case_law)

Then Nel would argue that it would be automatic for OP to ask his bed partner if she heard the same thing he did, just like OP has done in the past more than once. It is also automatic for OP to put his "legs" on since he has "limited mobility" on his stumps. I don't see how this will help the defense.

MOO

 

[Gbtaketwo]

BBM - And he's only just started!!

This short clip about whether the prosecution is being too tough on OP is very interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-accidentally-fired-gun-times/story?id=23251260

Nancy Grace (former prosecutor) is great!!!! She says: "I can guarantee you, in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend, and then you cry on the stand - we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry".

Just watched the Nancy Grace clip .
Did OP really say on the stand "I'll try not to lie " .... .?

 

[emmavoberry]

It all comes down to this: OP has to lie. The truth would seal his fate. Hence, we find contradictions, discrepancies, holes, omissions, a ring of the false in much of what he has reported to date. One can keep apologizing for him, ignore these discrepant statements, discredit witnesses (as in neighbors heard a MAN'S voice; OP SOUNDS like a woman when he is upset), he's so ashamed he can't say the words to own up etc. problem is in the lies. If there's a coverup going on, why, and WHAT is being covered up? If a few of his actions or inactions needed defense, fine. We can blame what doesn't make sense on panic and the old who can judge how anyone of us would act if our loved one....blah blah. But there's a mountain of questionable material...he's GOT to cry and lie for his life.

 

[TorisMom003]

Just watched the Nancy Grace clip .
Did OP really say on the stand "I'll try not to lie " .... .?

I thought it was "I try not to lie" in response to being a good Christian and things along those lines.

 

[Goforgold]

Did everyone hear what OP said? OP said his legs were on the right side of the bed!

If he feels as vunerable as he states he feels without his prosthetics, surely he would keep them on the side of the bed he was sleeping, that night.

 

[Lyra500]

Absolutely not. I like to think I am a good person, but I just make my observations based on my own reading of people. I don't know anyone can logically say this man is a sociopath. No psychologist would.

Well that is not the impression given in this article

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-performance-may-prove-mental-state/

What doesn&#8217;t seem to occupy Pistorius&#8217;s mind, says Pretoria clinical and forensic psychologist Ivan de Klerk, is that Reeva will never sleep, be tired, or sad, or happy about anything or anyone ever again, thanks to him.

De Klerk says he can&#8217;t diagnose Pistorius with narcissistic personality disorder, without consulting him, but agrees that Pistorius demonstrates many of the hallmarks, along with an overwhelming need for admiration, and especially a lack of remorse.

What&#8217;s that, you might say &#8211; did De Klerk say lack of remorse? Surely that&#8217;s exactly what Pistorius thought he was demonstrating in court yesterday.

 

[Cherwell]

I would argue that if he can't say specifically his actions caused her death, then he hasn't really owned it. He says "mistake", "tragedy" "accident" easily, but there is absolutely no ownership in that at all. I don't see how you can argue it does. He can't even admit he pulled the trigger without obscuring in language that takes away all of his own action.

He is a long way from accepting it and owning it. He's still in a fetal position denial of his deadly actions. Clear as day, he is trying hard to escape responsibility.

The words are very important. And he finally said them.

BIB
In his account, sorry, version of the killing, sorry, accident, he says ""The accident was that I discharged my firearm ... ". That phrase did pull me up. No, Oscar, you shot somebody.

 

[Carol70]

No, but being out on the balcony was a "reason" he didn't see/hear Reeva get up.

No, that was all our "reason", the general public. I just read his statement and bail affi and not once does he mention that was the reason why he didn't hear her get up. All he says in his statement is "in the time that I got the fans, closed doors etc"

 

[soozieqtips]

Just watched the Nancy Grace clip .
Did OP really say on the stand "I'll try not to lie " .... .?

Yes, he really did.

Can you believe it? He has to make a special effort not to lie!