Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[soozieqtips]

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

It's totally unreal how much criticism he's come in for when Roux was beyond vile and people fell over themselves with praise for him! I feel sorry for Nel. It's like pulling teeth trying to get anything coherent out of that murderer, but his job is to get to the truth, not worry about runny noses and howling.

 

[minor4th]

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

Maybe he has a lift. I don't know but it's kind of absurd to say that he has wheelchair friendly doors as some kind of ploy for appearances in court.

 

[Gavel Rash]

It's totally unreal how much criticism he's come in for when Roux was beyond vile and people fell over themselves with praise for him! I feel sorry for Nel. It's like pulling teeth trying to get anything coherent out of that murderer, but his job is to get to the truth, not worry about runny noses and howling.

Specially when you can hear the just under the surface seething annoyance from Oscar at "How dare you try to ask me questions you impertinent little man. I am Oscar hear me roar, scream and cry like a girl! because I am he, the enigma!"

He will crack shortly..that temper will come well out for all to see.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Reeva's mother knew the picture was going to be shown and said something like "He (OP) should see it. He should face it". She was forewarned about it.

 

[shane13]

It seems OP’s MO as a witness is simple.

When caught in a lie, simply say:
Mantra #1, “I am not or have not lied, Milady.”

When caught in making a great change to his BH affidavit with plea statement or witness terstimony, say:
Mantra #2: “I have not changed anything in my statements, Milady.”

When seriously caught and seeing nobody buying Mantras #1 and #2,
Go to Mantra #3: “My counsel got it wrong.”
Then go back and repeat Mantra #1 or #2.

The above to me appears to be the “logic” in OP’s testimony. Very simple to see now I hope.

It is coupled with his actual admitting that much of what he is testifying to does NOT come from his memory of events but is based on pics or other things that were admitted into evidence! This too is quite remarkable like the above 3 Mantras.

 

[aa9511]

Yep .. I don't think he went to far at all .. these were the injuries inflicted on Reeva, and they have to be shown .. they can't conduct a brutal murder trial without showing these things. Reeva's parents will be well prepared for this, I can't imagine how tough this must be for them, but I doubt very much they want all this to be treated with kid gloves because they want justice to be served, and if that means showing pix like this then I am sure they are prepared to do it.

Yes and it was for the Judge.....sorry to break it to everyone but I think Nel did it for the Judge, not for the people sitting in the courtroom, the people watching livestream, or even for Websleuthers.

I think the judge probably got the effect he was trying to give.

JMO.

 

[crasshopper]

The way I feel about it is that both attorneys are doing their jobs. As highly competitive accomplished individuals there is a lot of ego and emotion at play on the attorney's parts as well. They have prepared a long time and much is at stake. I can imagine litigators live for these moments and nothing wrong with that, jmo.

Neither is perverting the law.

 

[Magdalyn]

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.

BiB

He did really claim it. The words came out of his mouth. Just because it didn't sound good, or consistent with OP version 1.0, and he tried to explain away his initial responses to make them sound better, more like what he alleges he meant, it doesn't negate them as a claim.

"I made a mistake"

"I did not purposefully fire the shots through the door"

"The accident was that I discharged my firearm because I believed an intruder was coming to attack me... The discharge was accidental."

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

 

[emmavoberry]

In order to fully understand OP explaintion of events, we also have to take him at his word and not superimposed what we think he meant. It is his statement and so should not be interpreted IMO

Feeling ambivalent about what you say, here. Absolutely we should listen carefully to his testimony, certainly compare it to the case facts, other people's testimony, his initial official statements, and "process" before rushing to judge. But we certainly can, within the overall case context, not as cherry-picking, look at how he says what he says, that is, look at how he uses language. That kind of analysis is a good tool if not a scientific one. And I do think we can, without prejudice, look at the sub-text of what he says, especially since we aren't a jury and not giving expert testimony. The main problem I have is that he has revised over time many crucial aspects as compared with his initial and I thought at the time fairly thorough statement. Yet, your admonition is one I will take to heart.

 

[redheart]

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!

I think the point is he is using the wheelchair friendly doors to remind the judge of his disability. Not that he installed them for that reason, but explaining why he talked about them during CE today. Why else bring that up apropos of nothing?

 

[aa9511]

The importance of this point of whether OP went out onto to the balcony or did not go out onto the balcony is that all along everyone thought he had gone out onto to the balcony and that's when Reeva got up out of bed and went into the bathroom.

If he never actually left the room, but rather just pulled the standing fan from the doorway into the bedroom, how could he have failed to see or hear her get out of bed?

I expect to see Nels close in on one point after another like this.

So then why is Oscar so vehemently denying that he went on to the balcony??

 

[shane13]

Reeva's mother knew the picture was going to be shown and said something like "He (OP) should see it. He should face it". She was forewarned about it.

Sooz, good point.
It is interesting how universal family members can be with wanting the guilty to face what they did.

After President Kennedy was murdered, they tried to get Jackie to change her clothing which had blood and possibly brain matter on it.
She steadfastly refused saying, "No, let them see what they have done."

 

[Magdalyn]

Maybe he has a lift. I don't know but it's kind of absurd to say that he has wheelchair friendly doors as some kind of ploy for appearances in court.

It's not that he has them, it's that 'wheelchair friendly' was worth mentioning. I can't imagine double doors going to the master are exclusive to only handicapped accessible homes in SA. Are they?

That his double doors happen to be wheelchair friendly has nothing to do with anything since he wasn't in a wheelchair the night he killed Reeva.

So why mention the word wheelchair at all?

 

[emmavoberry]

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.

Therein lies the problem I have with his testimony on this matter and several others. He says one thing (or has in his first police statement) and then explains he means a somewhat different thing. He says one thing and then says another that contradicts the first fact. He sometimes wants things both ways when that is not possible. He is asleep and he is not etc. He elaborates (embroiders?), preempts arguments, quibbles with his own statements when caught out, all behaviors which are consistent with covering up rather than acknowledging the truth. I see a pattern.

 

[ShadyLady]

I am listening to yesterday.


5 minutes between shooting the door and breaking door open with bat, I am missing something.

 

[IfIMay]

So then why is Oscar so vehemently denying that he went on to the balcony??

because he seems incapable of admitting to anything.. regardless of whether it hurts him or not. he doesn't seem to be very smart or much of a critical thinker.

 

[crasshopper]

66 seconds is more than enough time - easily.

And I need to ask: Why do you think OP would need to describe all of Reeva's injuries? What a waste of precious time that would be.

I just timed myself: "Sir, you should bring her in yourself instead of waiting for an ambulance." Five seconds max.

I agree with Soozie, see below. I also wanted to add 2examples of men who murdered their wives, call 911 BUT purposely keep the call short, are evasive and even hang up on 911.

- Martin MacNeill
- Craig Rabinowitz

You don't think they'd ask for details of the injuries to ascertain whether it was safe for her to be moved or not? People with neck or spinal injuries shouldn't be moved. If OP said he'd shot his girlfriend in the head, do you think they'd have told him to bring her in? Or are you assuming they didn't ask for any details?

 

[crasshopper]

because he seems incapable of admitting to anything.. regardless of whether it hurts him or not. he doesn't seem to be very smart or much of a critical thinker.

I just doesn't seem important to me. Maybe I am missing something. Don't understand why OP would argue about it. In my eyes it just makes him look worse when he won't just concede even a small, likely inconsequential, "fact."

 

[shane13]

So then why is Oscar so vehemently denying that he went on to the balcony??

Possibly because if he went further out onto the balcony as stated in his BH affidavit, then maybe he would have then been facing in when bringing it or them in to the bedroom and with curtains open etc, would have had to have seen the absence of Reeva.

Note also the addition of blinking LED light. So this now gives him some light as opposed to the earlier "pitch dark" claim.

Note also that he alleges being on his stumps and allegedly needing to lean on to walls etc for balance, etc., but then he can carry or bring in the fan(s) w.o. needing to hold on to walls or such??

 

[wb180]

So then why is Oscar so vehemently denying that he went on to the balcony??

Who knows but he is trying to cover all his bases. He said it himself. He only gives an answer after considering the consequences of that answer. He doesn't give an answer to tell the truth.