Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Rumpole]

I can't see that Nel's cross-examination differs much from Roux's, which also featured a lot of repetition and badgering.

As to the BIB - the State's thesis of events is gradually emerging, like a developing photograph.

Roux is not as nasty and threatening.

State version "emerging"??

But they have rested?

It is their burden to put a version and prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

The defense then to have an opportunity to respond.

In all seriousness... this seems nuts to me. Fine for the prosecution to cross examine and test OP's version. But it is the Sttate who have laid charges and have the burden to layout their version and prove it... beyond reasonable doubt.

Whatever version they have... I'd like to see it scrutinized and questioned... over, and over, and over, and over... in every minute detail.

 

[BritsKate]

Nel is doing nothing that prosecutors literally all over the world don't do. His job is to challenge the accused - to indeed attack his veracity. We can all nitpick on tactics...but he is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing. Rest assured, if he does step over the mark he will be called on it. The judge will admonish him and a complaint could be made to SA's version of the bar association which would open the door for potential further sanction.

It just isn't the prosecutor's duty to concern himself with the emotional or even mental well-being of the defendant. He was found competent to stand trial; the judge has already intercepted to prevent an appellate issue in questioning Oscar on being tired; and he's being allowed plenty of breaks to compose himself. It's up to Oscar's team to prepare him well enough that he doesn't dissolve under scrutiny - not the prosecutor's duty to tailor questioning to the benefit of the accused. JMO

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

 

[zwiebel]

The judge has already rebuked Nel once for mentioning OP's emotional state 'now'. She said Friday: 'He's been emotional throughout'. She doesn't seem to like that strategy from Nel.

So I don't really understand why Nel keeps doing it. There's no jury to sway, and I am sure the judge has made up her own mind now if it is a tactic or genuine emotion by OP?

 

[G.bng]

Ok: isn't it an issue if the same exact story comes out time after time- isn't there supposed to be some variations in how an innocent person tells of an incident? I am not talking about the stark variations, the little stuff- like whisper vs tone type stuff.

I will have to spend some time researching the differences between SA and US law....

I think you are missing the point. Of course slight variations of wording can be expected (albeit not according to Roux who really laid into Burger for her changing one word) but OP has said he never had said he whispered, when in a statement he says whispered, and now insists he spoke in a soft voice.

And is it important? In this case absolutely yes, because had he whispered from the entrance to the passage it would be absurd to whisper, so either he had to be nearer to Reeva so he could expect her to hear him or she would not have been able to hear him properly and most probably would have replied asking him to repeat what he said. On the other hand if he spoke in a soft voice he could expect Reeva to hear him and therefore it wouldn't look so strange that according to OP's version she didn't... well, something like that if I've explained myself. jmo

 

[Cherwell]

Apparently they did... I missed It :doh:
I posted above.
Today's thing was blatant... but Nel has been wrong on other points that he has used to badger OP.

Roux often seemed to make claims in his C/E that he never proved.

Roux is not as nasty and threatening.
State version "emerging"??
But they have rested?
It is their burden to put a version and prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
The defense then to have an opportunity to respond.
In all seriousness... this seems nuts to me. Fine for the prosecution to cross examine and test OP's version. But it is the Sttate who have laid charges and have the burden to layout their version and prove it... beyond reasonable doubt.
Whatever version they have... I'd like to see it scrutinized and questioned... over, and over, and over, and over... in every minute detail.

There was no opening argument from either side, as we hear in the UK. That is where we usually hear a summary of the Crown's case. I presume that there will be closing arguments.

 

[Rumpole]

So sorry Rumpole. Didn't mean to single you out like that. :blushing: I didn't see your post. I've had a hard time keeping up today, no matter how many diet cokes I chug. LOL. Thanks for being a gentleman about it.

That is the second time I have been referred to as "a gentleman" I might have to start alerting posts.. bad for my "bad boy" image. :floorlaugh:

It is hard to keep up... I thought I only missed a tiny bit after a break... but I must have missed a few minutes of important stuff.

Nel getting a much deserved slap finally sounds like the highlight of the day :floorlaugh:

 

[Insp.Dots]

If the defence have a recording of 'OP' screaming like a woman, how are we able to verify that it is actually him, if it does indeed sound like a woman? I don't believe he could ever sound like a woman, so if they do have such a recording, I don't believe it is him doing it. If they have a recording of him screaming, it will sound like a man screaming in a high pitched voice .. it won't sound like a woman, fact.

I would think there would have been a lawyer present at the recording or someone to confirm it is actually OP. You can't state it as a fact, only your opinion. It will only be the Judge whose opinion on it will matter and if future witnesses say they heard Oscar screaming, even in a high pitched voice it will 'possibly' cast doubt on what earlier witnesses had heard from a much greater distance. I think the defence are going to have to go 'all out' with all of their case to cast doubt on earlier evidence. The state still hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt there was any arguing before the shots.

I agree with many that OP isn't telling the truth but I'm not convinced the State has yet proven 'intentional' (other than the 4 shots) Murder.
IMO...OP is arguing his case rather than telling his story, it's almost as if he's talking about someone else from a legal stance and not himself.

I am actually starting to think that he really isn't clever enough to understand what he should or shouldn't say, he is saying what in HIS MIND he thinks the Judge wants to hear. And that could go one of 2 ways, it's not what I'd expect to hear from a calculated Murderer, he is stupid, arrogant, with a superiority complex, immature and spoilt. He is definitely lying, but not in a way that necessarily helps his case in some ways he's made it worse for his case by saying too much. I'm not even convinced he got into a rage now which is what I had thought at the start.

He is according to the way SA laws go, guilty of Murder, because he fired 4 shots at a closed door. He knows/knew that would most likely result in death to whoever was behind it. Will his saying he wasn't thinking rationally get him off that? I don't know.:twocents:

 

[momrids6]

Are you referring to the oft repeated scripted lines OP spouts?

The scripted parts, as well as the picking at what are normal variations when telling a story. I guess I am too used to US court style. Is OP allowed a copy of the reports, old statements, etc when he is on the stand? This no talking to his counsel bothers me...

 

[shane13]

The judge has already rebuked Nel once for mentioning OP's emotional state 'now'. She said Friday: 'He's been emotional throughout'. She doesn't seem to like that strategy from Nel.

So I don't really understand why Nel keeps doing it. There's no jury to sway, and I am sure the judge has made up her own mind now if it is a tactic or genuine emotion by OP?

true.
But Judge herself seems to want to break as soon as OP gets emotional.
Again I think Pros and judge do not want to give OP DT grounds for successful Appeals.

If found guilty, OP could be out on bail for half a decade till all levels are exhausted.

 

[zwiebel]

They're back...

 

[Forensics]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA

If you're confused it's because you have been paying attention. It's really not clear what #OscarPistorius's defence is right now.

Whew!! I thought it was just me....

 

[asanque]

<minor snip> The state still hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt there was any arguing before the shots.

I agree with many that OP isn't telling the truth but I'm not convinced the State has yet proven 'intentional' (other than the 4 shots) Murder.

<further minor slip>

I can't resist.

Puts on best Nels voice: We'll get there Mr. Pistorius

 

[Cher352]

Roux is not as nasty and threatening.

State version "emerging"??

But they have rested?

It is their burden to put a version and prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

The defense then to have an opportunity to respond.

In all seriousness... this seems nuts to me. Fine for the prosecution to cross examine and test OP's version. But it is the Sttate who have laid charges and have the burden to layout their version and prove it... beyond reasonable doubt.

Whatever version they have... I'd like to see it scrutinized and questioned... over, and over, and over, and over... in every minute detail.

I too was surprised when the state rested so quickly , thinking is this all there is. Wasn't impressed at all.

Seems like just the opposite of our trials where the state lays out the case and the defense just has to lay the groundwork for reason doubt the in state's case.

 

[G.bng]

Barry Bateman &#8207;@barrybateman 1h
#OscarTrial Nel: the first shot hit Reeva in the hip. She fell on the magazine rack. You changed your aim and shot at it. BB

OP knew exactly where in the WC that magazine rack was. That intimate knowledge along with Reeva's screaming made hitting her more than just lucky, it was nearly impossible for him to miss her.

Barry Bateman &#8207;@barrybateman 1h
#OscarTrial Nel asking about the grouping. Pistorius says it&#8217;s not very good grouping at all. BB

I just posted that tweet because it made me laugh! :smile:

This tweet from Andrew Harding (BBC) made me laugh:

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH 2 hrs
#OscarPistorius is struggling to explain why he fired 4 shots - Deliberate but unthinking. Defensive but not intending to kill. Tricky line.

 

[beach]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA

If you're confused it's because you have been paying attention. It's really not clear what #OscarPistorius's defence is right now.

Whew!! I thought it was just me....

This is SO spot-on!

I can't keep up with Oscar's version(s) anymore.

 

[zwiebel]

N: Mr P. what did you think would happen if you fired through the door?

O: I didn't have time to think.

N: You didn't intend to kill anyone?

O: No Milady.

N: And today, if you had time?

OP concedes he would probably think he would hit someone if he fired into the door. Nel says if he he'd fired a warning shot down the passage, that would have scared someone.

OP says he doesn't know why he didn't.

 

[momrids6]

I think you are missing the point. Of course slight variations of wording can be expected (albeit not according to Roux who really laid into Burger for her changing one word) but OP has said he never had said he whispered, when in a statement he says whispered, and now insists he spoke in a soft voice.

And is it important? In this case absolutely yes, because had he whispered from the entrance to the passage it would be absurd to whisper, so either he had to be nearer to Reeva so he could expect her to hear him or she would not have been able to hear him properly and most probably would have replied asking him to repeat what he said. On the other hand if he spoke in a soft voice he could expect Reeva to hear him and therefore it wouldn't look so strange that according to OP's version she didn't... well, something like that if I've explained myself. jmo

Actually, I was asking in general, not so much in context of whisper vs low tone. The line of questioning is just so different- I'll go back to lurk mode and let the experts on this trial argue amongst themselves.

 

[asanque]

Nels using more of my arguments

Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24 - Page 65 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

['2. The room was pitch black yet Reeva did not turn on any lights (bedroom or bathroom) on the way to the toilet (and also knowing OP was awake).']

 

[sleuth-d-]

Perhaps she had been hiding close to the shared bathroom/toilette wall where the toilette roll mount is and OP drove her from that position by pounding on the outer tile wall(recall the busted tiles) with the cricket bat.

Reeva, then may have climbed onto the toilette in an attempt to get out through the window ... perhaps that is whyéwhere the oft repeated phrase (by Mel and Oscar) "Get Down!" factors in. Nel seems to have a bead on that particular phrase. Why? Perhaps because one of the closest neighbours has stated in their affidavit that they clearly heard the words "Get down".

Of course the question then arises - why did Nel not call one of the closest neighbours to give testimony? I reason that Nel was confident that one way or another during cross examination that the adjacent neighbours ( Eonlte and Michael Nhlegenthwa, who also phoned security around 3:16) would be called to the stand. Further, their testimony would act like bookends to the truth that Nel had been able to extract from OP before OP had heard the Nhlegenthwa testimony.

Clearly, all of the above is pure speculation on my part, but the phrase GET DOWN ,in my mind, is a significant one.

agree. it is like op has remembered the main shouted phrases from the argument and tinkered around with them, in order to cover any [ear]witnesses overhearing part of the argument.

 

[zwiebel]

OP just explained Reeva had her cell on her (lit) and that's why she didn't switch the lights on. And denies Nel's contention he'd have seen that light. He often uses his own for that.