Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[nastasya]

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.

Yes, more of making the killer out as the victim. Now he's the victim of bullying.

This must indicate the defense case is really swirling down the drain every time the killer opens his mouth.

Nel, who is doing his job, is the bad guy.

Pistorius, who according to his own story, shot his girlfriend because she went to go pee and he was too stupid to realize it, is the victim.

Admitted killer is being tortured and bullied by some lawyer's questions that he is required by law to answer. :boohoo:

 

[Really?]

yeah yeah yeah....he will try not to lie.......it was an accident....we re-worked the BH aff.......he doesn't want to incriminate himself with truthful answers....lalala

 

[Magdalyn]

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.

BBM

pre·var·i·cate
[ pri várrə kàyt ]

1.get out of telling truth: to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, especially by quibbling or being deliberately ambiguous or misleading


Definition of obfuscate (v)

ob·fus·cate
[ óbfə skàyt ]


1.make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated

2.confuse: to make somebody confused

 

[Really?]

With that he is in fact truly

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

hahaha....DH and I were just discussing this....he believed his own hype

 

[emmavoberry]

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

Poor girl. No where else for her to hide and she never got a chance to text.

 

[Viper]

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

Yes, Mr. Nel is very comfortable and very confident, his body language exudes confidence! But the man-child in front of him, well...

 

[nastasya]

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.

:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Viper]

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

BIB. IMO she didn't. OP has taken it from her. That's why she was unable to call the police.

 

[Val1]

Yep, it's a 4-digit number lock. :smile:

But do you need the 4 -digit number lock to delete messages that weren't quite sent yet?

 

[Magdalyn]

Yes, more of making the killer out as the victim. Now he's the victim of bullying.

This must indicate the defense case is really swirling down the drain every time the killer opens his mouth.

Nel, who is doing his job, is the bad guy.

Pistorius, who according to his own story, shot his girlfriend because she went to go pee and he was too stupid to realize it, is the victim.

Admitted killer is being tortured and bullied by some lawyer's questions that he is required by law to answer. :boohoo:

Nell, who is doing his job trying to get justice for a defenseless trapped woman killed by her lover is the bad guy. :sigh:

 

[Cherwell]

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.

The BIB really jarred with me, too.

If he had been asleep, as he claims, why would she ask him if he can't sleep? And why would he say he can't? If he'd just woken up, then he must have been sleeping! :doh:

 

[Gavel Rash]

But do you need the 4 -digit number lock to delete messages that weren't quite sent yet?

Yes. They have not detailed Reevas messages in court...yet. So there is possibly something there unless as noted above he had it all the time...hence the big effect of saying 'I retrieved Reevas bag..I did not go though it?"

 

[minor4th]

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?

He didn't really claim that it went off accidentally - he said that but then explained that what he meant was that he was overcome with fear and pulled the trigger without actually thinking about killing the intruder.

Whether he intended to or not, since he knows that shooting at someone will likely kill them - he would still be responsible even if in his mind he was hoping that the bullets miss and that no one gets hurt.

 

[emmavoberry]

I will revise my claim: people who lie about crimes they commit against others can have a tendency to refuse to publicly take personal responsibility as agents for the harm they do and when confronted in a legal setting, given their lawyer's instruction, will frame that act linguistically with passive voice. But hey, it could be a reflection of a more global behavior. OP wanted someone else to take the rap for him when he fired a gun in a restaurant accidentally. Blaming others, refusing responsibility through distancing from own actions, equivocating--these are fairly widely observed behaviors among manipulative folks, some of whom are sociopaths (most of whom are not homicidal), some of whom are murderers, some of whom commit non-violent crimes. And a good defense lawyer will coach wording.

 

[Duchy]

Sky news just now....June has done/sold story for Sun newspaper on why she sits in court every day. Think it is todays edition.

 

[vansleuths]

What is this thing that OP's uncle has in his ear. Is it translating the testimony into another language or is he just hard of hearing?

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article3393145.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/Pistorius-trial-3393145.jpg

 

[minor4th]

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?

That's really an unfair statement. He got wheelchair friendly doors in his house - maybe because he is an advocate for disabled athletes and amputees?? Maybe because he has friends or associates who need expanded access such as double doors?

Do you think he got a wheelchair friendly house built in 2008 in anticipation of being on trial for murder one day and he could use that to make himself look better to the court?

Come on!

 

[aa9511]

The BBC live newsfeed I'm watching alongside the coverage says the picture has gone down badly:
"The BBC's Andrew Harding in Pretoria reports that it is the first time the courtroom has been deliberately shown a photograph of Ms Steenkamp's head injury. He says there was no warning to her mother, who is in court today, and adds that there is little sympathy for Mr Nel's provocative behaviour in the courtroom."

How does he know there was no warning to her mother before court began? Sheesh, talk about journalism these days. They think they have video-cameras and are able to see past, present, and future.

Perhaps Reeva's mother gave her consent in order for Nel to make a point in court. We saw Juan Martinez use this tactic numerous times during Jodi's trial. IMO, he was trying to make a point that it was easy for Oscar to laugh and joke about blowing someone's brain out just a few weeks prior to the murder, however now all of a sudden he can't look at one picture of what he did with his own hands, with the weapon he used to carelessly in previous tmes (as shown in court thru witness testimony).

JMO.

 

[crasshopper]

Another thing(of the many) that doesn't make sense to me is that if you wake up at 3 am and you're partner talks to you saying essentially "couldn'd sleep could you," and you then get out of bed to go to the balcony, I would think that a little more small talk would occur between the partner's UNLESS you were in a fight.

For instance, "do you want to bring in the fans or should I?" "no you do it" ,"I'm just going to use the loo a minute" etc

Also, if OP's scenario were true, why wouldn't the able bodied, yoga doing Reeva not insist on bringing the fans in, especially since they were closer to her side of the bed, I wouldn't have my bedmate hobble over on his stumps to do it.

sorry, had not yet seen the following

...
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]

That's really an unfair statement. He got wheelchair friendly doors in his house - maybe because he is an advocate for disabled athletes and amputees?? Maybe because he has friends or associates who need expanded access such as double doors?

Do you think he got a wheelchair friendly house built in 2008 in anticipation of being on trial for murder one day and he could use that to make himself look better to the court?

Come on!

Then how can these poor friends & associates get upstairs? Or is it only able bodied like Oscar allowed?