Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Gryffindor]

I'm afraid that's not correct. My brother was working in Manhattan on that day and witnessed the second plane going into the towers, in the rear view window of his car of his car. He was very close to the event. His memory of the day is perfect. He said it was like a slow motion movie, he remembers every detail. Granted, he wasn't in the tower but close enough to be directly involved. He's a contractor and had left his workers a few blocks over when he left to collect equipment. His additional concern was for their safety.

According to current memory science, OP should vividly remember the events of that night. Playing the events of the night over in his own mind will have helped to further consolidate the memory of this event.

From the article I linked (but there are plenty others) :-

"Stressful or emotionally arousing events are typically remembered better than emotionally neutral events. Stress hormones, released by the adrenal glands into the bloodstream, assist in preparing an animal to fight or flee by increasing energy resources and promoting attention and vigilance. Extensive evidence indicates that this sympathetic response contributes to the enhancement of memory consolidation through actions on β-adrenoceptors in the basolateral complex of the amygdala"

The protein I referred to in my first post is the ARC protein.

Thank you. That's what I'm saying, with greatest of respect.

If you're involved in a car accident, you remember very little (I did). If you see a car accident happening, you remember much more and more clearly.

Then again, we're all different, and a rule of thumb can't be applied for all.

 

[Carmelita]

As to remembering or not remembering the minutia of traumatic events, everyone is different, some people block it out some people relive it on a daily basis. The human mind has a labyrinth of options, conscious and unconscious.

 

[BritsKate]

how can we decipher the word "snap"...in Reeva's message to OP.....snap to me is a 180 degree turn......anyone?

I think its down to interpretation maybe. For me, and this is just my opinion, there's a big difference between screaming and yelling. I see screaming as violent because it can be terrifying being on the receiving end of it. There's yelling at your teen about not picking up their dirty laundry and then there's screaming in your teen's face how good for nothing they are.

I can only view 'snap' as an abrupt change in normal temperament and demeanor.

JMO

 

[Gryffindor]

how can we decipher the word "snap"...in Reeva's message to OP.....snap to me is a 180 degree turn......anyone?

To "snap at someone" - sharp, cutting remark. Nothing major.

 

[soozieqtips]

Putative defence:

Until his testimony, this was Pistorius’s defence. I say “until his testimony”, because during his testimony, he seems to be claiming that he fired at the toilet door by accident. This is vastly different – a claim of “accident” amounts in law to a claim of involuntariness. The defence of involuntariness is well recognised – examples include movement during an epileptic seizure and sleepwalking. The essence of the defence is that your mind did not direct or control your conduct. His testimony seems to be raising this defence. In Tasha’s, the gun in his hand simply went off by itself. His claim is he did not pull the trigger.

This is not, at least, at odds with what he has said before on this firearms charge because his testimony is, to my knowledge, the first indication of his defence on this charge.
However, on the murder charge, his defence, until his testimony, has been that he mistakenly thought he was entitled to act in self defence. This, as I’ve said, is a valid defence. Yet in his testimony, he seems to be changing his defence. He seems to be claiming that the discharge of his firearm was an accident or at the very least, that his conduct was not under the control of his mind. This is again a claim that the gun had gone off in his hands, but he had nothing to do with it.

This seems to keep happening to Oscar.

http://criminallawza.net/

 

[Gryffindor]

how can we decipher the word "snap"...in Reeva's message to OP.....snap to me is a 180 degree turn......anyone?

Reeva said when you "snap at me" not when he "snapped".

Dictionary.com definition:

"To speak abruptly or sharply"

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I can't believe this. My point is being proven over and over again here tonight.
He is saying he can't remember stuff, but Nel is saying it is impossible for him not to remember. And now you have done the exact same thing, not just you lots of people. I don't see why you suggest I am picking up only a few minutes of the day. The whole blooming day was the same. Even the judge was sick of it.
:banghead:

IMO Nel wants OP to protest and to break through with the truth we all (esp. Reeva's parents) wait for.

 

[weeeva]

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.

Once again I am going to disagree. In a way you have actually agreed with me.
You have described not one but two reactions to trauma. Some people remember every detail, some remember nothing, or unconsciously block it out. There may well be such a phenomenon as you describe that happens to some people, but I don't believe that that phenomenon happens to everyone who is traumatised, terrorised or greatly stressed.

 

[aa9511]

I'm confused by what Reeva was supposed to call the police and say. Oscar at no time mentioned a noise to her, for all he knew she didn't have a clue what he was getting worked up about, he didn't tell her what she was supposed to say to the police, just that she should call them (according to his version). Have any of the lawyers asked this question?

OMG that is a good point!

It makes no sense. Unless he knew that she had heard "the noise" with him. But obviously he didn't know.

For example, if God forbid my husband and I are both up and we are in the same room and we hear a noise like an intruder, coming from the bathroom direction, my husband would immediately look at me to see if I heard the noise too. It doesn't require any speaking, but it does require some kind of facial contact. If I heard the noise and I was looking at the door with a frightened/shocked expression on my face, he would immediately know I had heard the same thing. It wouldn't require me having to look at him, but it would require him having to see me to look at my expression. Once he saw that I had heard the same noise and had reacted the same way about the noise, he could say "Call the police" and know that I woudl understand what he meant.

As I'm thinking about this scenario in my head, I cannot think of ANY scenario where we would both be awake and in the same room, and he would just go get his gun and charge to the bathroom without some kind of contact with me first - whether that be facial, eye, or voice. Especially when getting his gun would mean he was literally just a few feet away from me.

Oscar's story is not plausible and it will get a Guilty verdict.

JMO.

 

[sorrell skye]

Hi. Regarding memory, e.g.. 9/11 you remember vividly if you weren't directly involved. If you're directly involved, many horrific events will be "a blur" or you purposely won't want to/ choose not to remember, as it's too horrific and would permanently haunt you/impede your whole life/view of the world. You would barely function.

Scientific research supports the opposite of the above statement. If one is directly involved in a traumatic event, the memory of that event will be more detailed, compared to the memory of someone who was not directly involved.

Flashbulb memories

The hypothesis of a special flashbulb-memory mechanism holds that flashbulb memories have special characteristics that are different from those produced by "ordinary" memory mechanisms. The representations created by the special mechanism are detailed, accurate, vivid, and resistant to forgetting.

Brown, Roger; Kulik, James (1977). "Flashbulb memories". Cognition 5 (1): 73–99. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X


It has been documented that people that are involved in a flashbulb event have more accurate recollections compared to people that were not involved in the event. Recollections of those who experienced the Marmara earthquake in Turkey had more accurate recollections of the event than people who had no direct experience. In this study, the majority of participants in the victim group recalled more specific details about the earthquake compared to the group that was not directly affected by the earthquake, and rather received their information about it from the news.

Er, Nurhan (July 2003). "A new flashbulb memory model applied to the Marmara earthquake". Applied Cognitive Psychology 17 (5): 503–517. doi:10.1002/acp.870

Flashbulb memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[weeeva]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittychi View Post
What a nightmare for his siblings. I would love to know what they are thinking.

Yes. What a heart-breaking situation to be in. I don't know how they manage to compose themselves.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The facts, IMO - the facts - incontrovertibly (sp?) point to Oscar killing Reeva out of intent.

So why he did is meaningless. For example, there have been a myriad of reasons we have guessed to on here....I can remember some off the top of my head:

-argument over modelling contract
-argument over Reeva not locking up and closing up at night
-argument over Reeva's lunch with ex-boyfriend
-argument over Reeva not bringing him food
-argument over Valentine's day/gifts
-argument over *advertiser censored*
-argument over Oscar being on phone/Ipad for long time
-argument over his bad mood, in with he returned home from a celebration.....{insert something}

No one is saying he just picked up the gun for no reason and shot her.

Obviously there was some escalation of some argument or escalation of something, what we don't know and really doesn't matter.

JMO.

I inserted the blocked. - May be a part or all above.

 

[Madeleine74]

If you're involved in a car accident, you remember very little (I did). If you see a car accident happening, you remember much more and more clearly.

Then again, we're all different, and a rule of thumb can't be applied for all.

True that for the rule of thumb that can't be applied. I was in a 5 car pile up on a freeway over 15 yrs ago. I remember every detail of it including the sound of the glass breaking, the smell, all of it. I even remember what I was wearing. Fortunately I was uninjured and walked away from it, but my memory of that incident, even to this day, is fully intact.

 

[Madeleine74]

How is OP doing on the stand? I realize that's a very open ended question, but I haven't been watching or keeping up.

Is he coming across as truthful?

 

[aoibhinn]

Once again I am going to disagree. In a way you have actually agreed with me.
You have described not one but two reactions to trauma. Some people remember every detail, some remember nothing, or unconsciously block it out. There may well be such a phenomenon as you describe that happens to some people, but I don't believe that that phenomenon happens to everyone who is traumatised, terrorised or greatly stressed.

Of course, you are absolutely right. There is no prescription for reaction to traumatic events. However, there is evidence (anecdotal, in this particular instance) that cognitive processing is magnified under these circumstances. It is theorised that neurotransmitter release could be responsible.

It is difficult to put this theory to test in a lab, as to reproduce a real-life traumatic experience for testing would be completely unethical.

 

[patCee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittychi View Post
What a nightmare for his siblings. I would love to know what they are thinking.

Yes. What a heart-breaking situation to be in. I don't know how they manage to compose themselves.

Yes, when the camera is on them the sister looks as though she is muttering under her breath, over and over. The brother is doing it too, but not as clearly. I wonder if they are saying prayers throughout the hearings.

 

[patCee]

How is OP doing on the stand? I realize that's a very open ended question, but I haven't been watching or keeping up.

Is he coming across as truthful?

No, evasive and obfuscating to the extent that PT questioned a change of plea.

 

[shane13]

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/families-draw-closer-oscar-trial-continues/

This article says that Oscar just stated that he hadn't seen his Dad in years.
Henke was at the BH. a year ago. Even touched his son once or twice.

Hmmm.

 

[aoibhinn]

True that for the rule of thumb that can't be applied. I was in a 5 car pile up on a freeway over 15 yrs ago. I remember every detail of it including the sound of the glass breaking, the smell, all of it. I even remember what I was wearing. Fortunately I was uninjured and walked away from it, but my memory of that incident, even to this day, is fully intact.

That sounds dreadful, it must have been terrifying. I'm glad to hear you were uninjured.

Your report on your memory of the event is what would be expected (in the absence of a head injury or other extremely painful injury which would have drawn on your focus). Additionally, you have strong sensory associations with the event - smell, sound, vision.

 

[Viper]

Quoting from the following link:

“The way I understand the defense is that you acted in putative self-defense,” Nel began. “That you fired at the attacker to ward off an attack.”

“I didn't have time to think,” Pistorius answered. “I fired my firearm.”

So Nel asked Pistorius why he didn’t fire a warning shot.

“If I fired a shot into the shower door it could have ricocheted and hit me,” the 27-year-old runner replied.

That’s when Nel pounced.

“So you had time to think about it,” he said.

Later on, Pistorius was forced to admit he never checked if Steenkamp was still in their bed as he claimed earlier.

“This is what a reasonable person would have done,” Nel said.

Nel also got Pistorius to concede that despite his fear that someone had used a ladder to enter his home, after the shooting he never checked outside the window to confirm his suspicions.

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1755600