Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[minor4th]

If an abusive relationship were limited to physical violence, I might agree. Domestic violence, or rather, intimate partner violence as its now called extends far beyond physical abuse. And they changed it to IPV to encompass dating, same-sex, teen and other relationships that don't confine themselves to classic DV. Sadly, in some states, a victim is still unable to obtain a restraining order unless they are living with their abuser.

I don't know if Oscar was an abuser but I think there's a lot to suggest a mentality very common to someone who is. I do most definitely think he's guilty of being abusive towards her - I don't think anyone could really dispute that.

I really do believe if someone is scared of their partner, or their partner's reaction, even 10% of the time it's likely indicative that there's something well and truly wrong.

JMO and FWIW


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...pistorius-before-her-death-is-heart-breaking/

When I say "violence" I mean "violence" - between intimate partners or otherwise.

I agree that there can be abuse without violence, but I do not believe that "domestic violence" includes non-violent behaviors, even if they are abusive.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

A bracelet that wasn't in his possession, from a jewellers he didn't name, with the vague idea of some trinkets for the bracelet... that wasn't in his possession.

Incidentially, not even in bail application, but her gift was as a proof for the great, great love.

 

[TrueDetective]

Originally Posted by TrueDetective View Post
This x-exam is just devastating for OP's credibility to the point of no return.
He is a totally unreliable witness and so his testimony will be discredited which means that his only defence - his version, will be totally rejected.
Verdict = guilty.
If anyone cannot see that, they are disconnected from reality.

Please do not say that I am disconnected from reality. I don't agree with the vast majority on here, or with anyone in my personal life, but majority does not mean right or truth. The way I see it the state has not proved it's case yet.
PS. I had to cut and paste the above post done in blue. The multi-quote did not work for me.

Sorry but I must insist. The state may well not have proved its case fully and beyond reasonable doubt quite yet. We are only halfway through the trial after all. There are defence witnesses to x-examine yet, maybe rebuttal witnesses plus the closing arguments but the point I was making was this-

This x-exam is just devastating for OP's credibility to the point of no return.
He is a totally unreliable witness and so his testimony will be discredited which means that his only defence - his version, will be totally rejected.

By all means ask more from the prosecution, I do too - but the case hangs or falls on the credibility of OP and his version.
If you cannot see or accept what an utter the disaster the last 4 days on the stand has been for OP then my point stands. No need to take it personally though, unless you really want to.

It is one thing to support OP (although personally I fail to understand the motive to do so) and I understand that some people hang onto their ideas like a dog to a bone or even enjoy taking a provocative or unpopular stance... but really, in this case trust the majority who know what they are watching and that is the steady and systematic disintegration of a lie and the crumbling of the defence's case.

 

[Cherwell]

I think he's said he never replied to her. She said "can't sleep Baba?" but in his story, he doesn't reply. He just goes straight to bringing in the fans.

Which makes it even more improbable to believe, just like you are saying.

He did say he replied "no". Which is just more of his nonsensical fabrication IMO. You ask someone if they can't sleep when they're awake, tossing and turning and fidgeting. Not when they've been asleep and just woken up! And having just been sleeping, why would he say he can't sleep? Makes no sense.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

None of that is true though.

I remember a female cop to have spoken about. I may be wrong ....

 

[TrueDetective]

Thank you. I remember exactly the last conversation I had with my daughter before she went out and didn't come home again. I remember it still, 14 years after !!

I'm so sorry

 

[Gryffindor]

WHY???
The manner of his questioning. He is repeatedly saying things are impossible when in my opinion they are not impossible. One example, he was trying to trip OP up about the duvet. Was the duvet on the bed when he returned to the bedroom or not. Now lets be honest here, if someone has just shot 4 bullets through a door possibly killing someone, whether that shooting was premeditated, done is self defence or in a jealous rage, is it impossible that they would notice whether or not a duvet was on a bed or not? I think even the judge is fed up with him now. Please try to excuse my impatience. I don't know if OP is guilty of premeditated murder or not, but Nel's manner of questioning is damaging OP's chance of a fair trial. Fortunately it is not a jury trial and the judge and her assessors will ensure that a fair trial ensues. I know I will be shot down in flames for my view. So be it.

Weeeva, don't feel AT ALL that you'll be "shot down in flames" , honey. Why should you? Everyone's entitled to their informed opinion.

I very much respect and appreciate the fact you're considering the trial from the judge's perspective , i.e. a fair trial.

So PLEASE continue :-D x

 

[james83]

Again not saying it makes him a murderer but there is definitely something very odd about his claim that they agreed not to make a big thing of valentine's day, can't get my head around that considering it would have been there first one, i honestly feel like she was much more into him then he was her and if anyone was going/or did end the relationship on the night of the 13th it was him, just the feeling i get when i think of the above and the evidence that certain thing's she did irritated him.

 

[minor4th]

I remember a female cop to have spoken about. I may be wrong ....

There was a female cop who said there had been responses of a domestic nature at his residence, but it turns out it was the incident of the girl who filed assault charges that were then dropped by the police for lack of evidence - none others. The female cop's statement was misleading.

I believe the reports that there was a call to his residence on 2-13-13 was just media speculation or rumor, but it wasn't true.

 

[Feynman]

That's not an unreasonable thing to say. On my cable/dvr box, when you turn the power button off, there is still an LED light that stays on as long as it is plugged in

My TV and stereo receiver are like that - LED stays on when unit is off, unless of course the plug is pulled. Very common these days. Some people are driven crazy by the LED always on; doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[TrueDetective]

Does anyone know if Nell can request the recording that Oscar mentioned of Oscar screaming like a woman since Oscar brought it up?

Second question. In the US judicial system, at a bench trial or a jury trial the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, does anyone know if that is the standard in SA also?

I'm pretty sure that if the method/results have been tailored to fit the defence, then they will use it in their witness testimony. I think Roux has alluded to that already.

No idea on Q 2

 

[beach]

I, too, believe this barely four-month-old relationship hadn't become abusive - at least not in the manner of what many DV type relationships entail.

Instead, I think it is far, far more sinister and that is where the muck is jamming the dam. Oscar on the stand is what all of us should be focusing on. Forget the theories, forget whether you like the DT or PT or the judge even. Watch and listen to that young man.

He's 27 years old which is still very, very young. He doesn't seem very intelligent (not meaning to be cruel, just an observation) and he definitely does not take responsibility for his actions.

Looking at the events in his life leading up to Feb 14 last year, he has been on a short fuse for a long time. Tragically for Reeva, she was the match. I have no proof of this, these are just my musings. But for me, that would make perfect sense why he is both tremendously remorseful and so freaking defiant when it comes to refusing the truth of what he's done (shooting at the restaurant, shooting out the roof of his car, threatening to break someone's legs...etc.). It's him. All him.

I'm suggesting that there is no reason. There was no huge gigantic fight that went on for hours and hours. There was likely both sex and arguing that was fairly normal up until something lit his match and she didn't do as he asked her to do (get the *advertiser censored** out of my house). So, in a fit of rage, he grabbed his gun and shot her. It happens (really, it does). And it has nothing to do with the victim (to be very clear, I'm not blaming Reeva in the least; she just had the dreadful luck of meeting OP).

I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened. But Nel, whether you dig him or despise him, is doing an outstanding job of discrediting OP. Like I mentioned before, if OP were telling the truth, the facts would support him. The facts don't, that I can tell (unless he keeps changing his version to fit his version....), and I'm hoping it won't matter if the PT somehow draws it out of him. I'm hoping the judge will see the same sinister I think a lot of us are seeing and lock him away at least long enough for his testosterone levels to decrease and his fuse to go out.

Thank you for posting exactly what I'm feeling as well.

So well said. Thanks again.

And Welcome!

:welcome:

 

[kaos]

One of the Sky News legal experts today said something along the lines of the more doubt that Nel casts on OP's version of events could mean the judge can completely reject all of his testimony and as she then only has the state's version of events that she has to accept it.

Reading other people's views on OP's intelligence, I think he's a very clever guy. His uncanny ability to pick up on specific words from Nel's questions, his clever determination to try and stick to certain key phrases, his amazing recollection of the crime scene photos and his belief that he knows what questions can and can't be asked whilst he's on the stand suggest a higher level of intelligence than he's being given credit for.

 

[soozieqtips]

Today, OP admitted that it must have been Reeva who slammed the toilet door, and not the imaginary intruder. Now why would Reeva have slammed the door at all if there hadn't been an argument of some sort beforehand?

 

[Carmelita]

Sorry but I must insist. The state may well not have proved its case fully and beyond reasonable doubt quite yet. We are only halfway through the trial after all. AThere are defence witnesses to x-examine yet, maybe rebuttal witnesses plus the closing arguments but the point I was making was this-

This x-exam is just devastating for OP's credibility to the point of no return.
He is a totally unreliable witness and so his testimony will be discredited which means that his only defence - his version, will be totally rejected.

By all means ask more from the prosecution, I do too - but the case hangs or falls on the credibility of OP and his version.
If you cannot see or accept what an utter the disaster the last 4 days on the stand has been for OP then my point stands. No need to take it personally though, unless you really want to.

It is one thing to support OP (although personally I fail to understand the motive to do so) and I understand that some people hang onto their ideas like a dog to a bone or even enjoy taking a provocative or unpopular stance... but really, trust that majority who know what they are watching and that is the steady and systematic disintegration of a lie and the crumbling of the defence's case.

Personally I have not read a single post that supports Oscar.

I for one will never trust the majority conclusion based on the simple fact it is majority conclusion. Our history is filled with the majority conclusion being down right wrong.

I'm also not stating that Oscar has presented a reasonable, rational scenario for the way things played out, nor if it played out exactly as Oscar claims it did do I think he acted within reason.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

In fact, Nel is correct. OP's memory is selectively cloudy, backing up Nel's statement even further.

There is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in intense emotional states - terror, stress, trauma, etc. - which causes cognitive processing to be magnified. As time appears to slow down, the person affected becomes acutely aware of details.

For example, in the moments before a car accident, the individual involved might note they thought of 'a million things' before impact. Awareness is heightened. This effect is often portrayed by a slo-mo effect in movies. Every detail is magnified and richly processed.

There have been instances where individuals have been so traumatised, that they succeed in blocking events from memory. However, OP only fails to remember convenient portions from the night in question. His memory of the event is alternately acutely specific or completely non-existent. This calls the fallibility of his recall into doubt.

Whenever it becomes critical and goes straight to the murder, his memory seems to work very well and he prefers to howl and collapse.

 

[katydid23]

I can't fathom why in the world Nel hasn't asked this. It is the most obvious question.

If you're truly panicking when you can't find someone, your first instinct is to turn on the light. Good grief.

I think Nel wanted OP to commit to his silly version of the story, and describe how he touched the floor and thne bed etc, instead of turning on the lights. If he had asked him first he might have said 'yes.'

 

[kittychi]

OP can't win. If he was to remember every last detail as it happened, Nel would accuse him of rehearsing everything and draw the finger of suspicion at him for having his story too perfect. He would say it is not possible to remember every detail.
And then when OP says he can't remember some of the details Nel would say it was not possible to forget this or that, or not probable. I did not hear OP saying anything at all today not one single thing that was impossible or improbable.

He is on trial for murder. All he has to remember is the truth and that doesn't change.

 

[patCee]

Personally I have not read a single post that supports Oscar.

I for one will never trust the majority conclusion based on the simple fact it is majority conclusion. Our history is filled with the majority conclusion being down right wrong.

I'm also not stating that Oscar has presented a reasonable, rational scenario for the way things played out, nor if it played out exactly as Oscar claims it did do I think he acted within reason.

BIB

It's that word REASON-ABLE again. The fact is he did shoot RS, and most if not all of his actions will depend upon that word in a future judgement. His denial of all the additional charges, and his account of the shooting of RS, as you say, fall short of what a reasonable person would do IMO.

 

[kittychi]

I, too, believe this barely four-month-old relationship hadn't become abusive - at least not in the manner of what many DV type relationships entail.

Instead, I think it is far, far more sinister and that is where the muck is jamming the dam. Oscar on the stand is what all of us should be focusing on. Forget the theories, forget whether you like the DT or PT or the judge even. Watch and listen to that young man.

He's 27 years old which is still very, very young. He doesn't seem very intelligent (not meaning to be cruel, just an observation) and he definitely does not take responsibility for his actions.

Looking at the events in his life leading up to Feb 14 last year, he has been on a short fuse for a long time. Tragically for Reeva, she was the match. I have no proof of this, these are just my musings. But for me, that would make perfect sense why he is both tremendously remorseful and so freaking defiant when it comes to refusing the truth of what he's done (shooting at the restaurant, shooting out the roof of his car, threatening to break someone's legs...etc.). It's him. All him.

I'm suggesting that there is no reason. There was no huge gigantic fight that went on for hours and hours. There was likely both sex and arguing that was fairly normal up until something lit his match and she didn't do as he asked her to do (get the *advertiser censored** out of my house). So, in a fit of rage, he grabbed his gun and shot her. It happens (really, it does). And it has nothing to do with the victim (to be very clear, I'm not blaming Reeva in the least; she just had the dreadful luck of meeting OP).

I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened. But Nel, whether you dig him or despise him, is doing an outstanding job of discrediting OP. Like I mentioned before, if OP were telling the truth, the facts would support him. The facts don't, that I can tell (unless he keeps changing his version to fit his version....), and I'm hoping it won't matter if the PT somehow draws it out of him. I'm hoping the judge will see the same sinister I think a lot of us are seeing and lock him away at least long enough for his testosterone levels to decrease and his fuse to go out.

:goodpost: