Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[TipDog]

Of course he is only doing his job, but do you really think that in a state of panic a persons mind is going to react in the same way as a person not in a panic. I can't understand why people don't see that. As I said earlier we are all different.

I'm not sure what you mean...? Nel doing his job has nothing to do with OP's memory.

And I agree with you that panic can affect a person's memory, certainly just after the fact when your body is still full of adrenaline. You can and likely will forget certain details.

However, in OP's case, he's now had a year to reflect on that evening. And when asked to give his version of what happened on the night he killed his girlfriend in his house while she was there as his guest, whether intentionally or accidentally, he'd do himself more good to a) tell the truth; and then b) stick to his original story as much as possible (which I'm sure Roux is now wishing he'd done).

Thing is, if OP were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I believe he'd have a repetitive series of concrete answers for Nel. And I think OP would never waver from those answers, even if he truly couldn't remember every minute that unfolded and occasionally got tongue-tied. Instead, he's adding details as his testimony proceeds and then forgetting what he said. That's classic liar mistakes, classic.

No matter how much you may want him to be telling the truth, which is understandable, you still must accept that no one in OP's situation would be given any longer of a rope to hang himself than OP has been given by Nel. OP is just really good with rope, I guess.

 

[weeeva]

Don't you think the Judge or Roux would have stopped Nel if his questioning was out of order??? He's doing a fantastic job at trying to get to the truth IMO

The judge did step in, more than once. Roux did too, I can't remember if it was once or twice.

 

[molly333]

This is certainly true. But when telling your narrative, assuming it's the truth which is what OP so desperately wants the court to believe so that he isn't incarcerated, your details shouldn't change. I.E. - OP should be able to remember whether he whispered or spoke aloud in a soft tone to RS, especially since he's been over that detail numerous times. No matter how much his mind may have blocked out, he's been asked to focus on those details, slowly, with mindfulness. It simply does not fly in the face of logic that he cannot stick to which form of communication he used as the two are not the same. But because he's lying in an effort to prove he did try to communicate with Reeva before heading off to shoot her in cold blood, he isn't focused on this HUGE discrepancy and mistake in his testimony (IMO anyway). And this is just one example.

I disagree. Whether he spoke softly or whispered or in a low tone is an irrelevant detail to the traumatized mind. If he has to say something, he will, doesn't mean it will be right.

 

[molly333]

Question: Is that toilet room able to be locked from the outside?

I've never seen a toilet with an actual lock that uses a key before.

Is it possible he locked her into the toilet?

 

[patCee]

I'm not sure what you mean...? Nel doing his job has nothing to do with OP's memory.

And I agree with you that panic can affect a person's memory, certainly just after the fact when your body is still full of adrenaline. You can and likely will forget certain details.

However, in OP's case, he's now had a year to reflect on that evening. And when asked to give his version of what happened on the night he killed his girlfriend in his house while she was there as his guest, whether intentionally or accidentally, he'd do himself more good to a) tell the truth; and then b) stick to his original story as much as possible (which I'm sure Roux is now wishing he'd done).

Thing is, if OP were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I believe he'd have a repetitive series of concrete answers for Nel. And I think OP would never waver from those answers, even if he truly couldn't remember every minute that unfolded and occasionally got tongue-tied. Instead, he's adding details as his testimony proceeds and then forgetting what he said. That's classic liar mistakes, classic.

No matter how much you may want him to be telling the truth, which is understandable, you still must accept that no one in OP's situation would be given any longer of a rope to hang himself than OP has been given by Nel. OP is just really good with rope, I guess.

I think Nel is using a technique that he has cleverly honed over the years. OP is giving him so much material to use. In any human interaction, even with challenges and conflicts, the back and forth is a kind of movement. This movement is vital for building rapport, and equally for effecting some change of view. Therapists know that this movement is important in order to create change. If OP just answered in a monosyllabic way, yes or no, Nel would find it difficult to move him on, and expose the contradictions in his testimony. Without movement the exchange would become static, rigid, whilst Nel is provoking him to keep moving.

 

[Rumpole]

The state does not have to prove a motive Rumpole, does it?

IANAL
But I have read here that a "motive" is not something that the State have to prove.

I wasn't meaning that exactly.

It seems to be a sufficient test for Nel to pick out a detail in OP's "version"and say "that does not make sense". Leaving aside the fact that what does not make sense to Nel says more about Nel than anything else, if "Does not make sense" for a detail is sufficient for Nel to claim that OP's entire version is not true, sufficient for Nel to state in open court that Oscar Pistorius is a "LIAR" then surely something that does not make sense in such an obvious way as the fact that a guy shooting his girlfriend intentionally, at 3:00 AM, needs some explanation.

Imagine somebody recounting the State version, minute by minute and cross examined, and badgered about every detail. Why were OP and Reeva arguing, where was Reeva at every second, where was Op, was he on his stumps, when were the lights on/off, where was the damned duvet at every second (lol) What fan was where, when, why. Was the stereo on or off. When did Reeva go eat this mythical extra meal, was the alarm on or off. Who switched it on or off When did she run to the bathroom. What did she say. What did he say. etc etc etc.

I bet you anybody trying to get the State version straight would soon be "not making sense"

We KNOW the State version (whatever the detail) is impossible from their own witness testimony and phone record times.

 

[luvmygarden]

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 !!

Bless You!!! Like the Steenkamps loosing Reeva as a grown woman we never can stop worrying if our children are safe in their surroundings. My heart goes out to You.

 

[shane13]

I did hear that, then. I'm not sure how much value it could possibly have ...

OP has been staying at Uncle Arnold's.

Now in Court, Oscar said he has not been back to his home since the shooting.

But recall at least 1 earwitness said in early March or thereabouts, she heard a male scream in a high pitched voice coming from Oscar's home. Does it make sense to have anyone else do the screaming?

And does it make sense to have Oscar scream from a different place--unless it was just to test his voice and not the accoustics between the witnesses' home's and Oscar's.

But there could be some interesting witnesses even after Oscar leaves the stand. I am sure we all want to give DT every opportunity to make their case.

...even after Oscar did much to unmake it.

 

[Really?]

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

:floorlaugh:

 

[dodie20]

I'll preface this by saying I believe he's guilty of intentional murder and others who don't will likely have a different view.

He comes across as sincere and honest IF one ignores him saying he didn't have time to think while he catalogues all the thoughts that ran through his head; changing his testimony sometimes literally mid-sentence - like he whispered to Reeva, spoke softly to Reeva, yelled at Reeva, whispered softly to Reeva, screamed at Reeva to call the police - but never told her why to call the police; didn't see Reeva at all to seeing Reeva's legs in bed under a duvet that the police moved but the police couldn't have moved it because jeans he admits to dropping were on the duvet so the duvet had to have been on the floor and Reeva's legs couldn't have been under it...oh, and if we accept that by never intending to shoot anyone he didn't just throw his defence of intending to shoot someone to save he and Reeva's lives under the bus.

Confused yet? Welcome to our world!

I think he comes across as sincere, because he IS sincere. He really is suffering and in pain, and regardless of the whys, it's all real. IMO, the worry, the fear, the tears, the vomiting are all for himself, but it's still there and not being faked. I think this is why people believe him. I ran across a picture of him standing outside the courtroom, and it bothered me so much that I haven't been able to listen to today's testimony. IDK how, but it did a good job of summing up a lot of emotions, and I got a little glimpse of OP's surreal reality...the worrying about himself and the sense that he wants somebody to 'fix' this, the sheer exhaustion, the refusal to admit what he did and why. He was chalky pale, his hair grayer, he looked on the verge of vomiting, and to be honest, I don't know how long he can go on. In His mind, he IS fighting for his life, because without all that he holds dear, he sees no life. IMO, he thinks of no one but himself, and only his suffering matters-but, he is suffering and it's hard to listen to. This is a very depressing case.

 

[lonetraveler]

OP said today he'd had a scream test done where he now lives, presumably not where he killed Reeva. Huh?

So, in other words that would explain why he appears to have rehearsed his part well.:floorlaugh:

 

[Viper]

There is an artist in the courtroom sketching OP in the box. Has anyone seen those sketches? If so, would you please share a link? TIA

 

[Really?]

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

maybe OT....*" I'm not sure"....but I swear if I close my eyes I can tell you who thanked this answer.


* I'm not sure.....Really.

 

[K.T]

Read this: 'The Oscar Pistorius Trial: What Did He Do?' - David Dadic

http://whosyourdadic.com/

Blog talks about
Murder - Dolus Directus

Well the State has lead some evidence that he intended to kill Reeva and had motive to do so, namely: screams of hers as heard by neighbors before and during shooting, text messages of alleged problems in their relationship and timing between bullets where he could have stopped but continued to fire. But most importantly I think is the evidence they will try show that he is lying under oath in an attempt to avoid prosecution i.e. the strenuous cross examination of his version.- David Dadic

Murder- Dolus Eventualis

I would suggest the evidence lead in this regard comprise the following: firing four bullets into a confined area, using black talon bullets, distance from the door when shooting, type of firearm used. It’s important to understand that in this crime, the identity of victim and existence of motive are not in question, what is in question is whether the conduct itself and the way it was done suffices as in intent to kill. - David Dadic

'Pistorius' New Defence?' - Professor James Grant

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

If your interested in what some lawyers are writing about the charges and case in general, here are two good blogs. Apologies if posted before, moderators if pulling these quotes are inappropriate I will delete them too.

 

[molly333]

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.

Yeah, that's why eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence on the planet---because the traumatized mind cannot remember details.

 

[TipDog]

I disagree. Whether he spoke softly or whispered or in a low tone is an irrelevant detail to the traumatized mind. If he has to say something, he will, doesn't mean it will be right.

Being on the stand is not OP being in a traumatized mind. He's under duress for sure, but not traumatized (no matter how much he pukes and cries). When he was in a traumatized mindset (presumably) and gave his original statement, he mentioned nothing of either whispering or speaking in a soft tone to Reeva, or speaking to her at all. This is a detail he's now adding to his testimony - and it changes constantly. In fact, the first time he said it, he immediately said he didn't say it. OP isn't the brightest tool in the shed but he isn't entirely stupid, either. Whispering is all about proximity whereas speaking in a soft tone is speaking aloud. Assuming it's dead silent in a room, you will hear a soft tone, but could still miss a whisper.

I realize I'm playing the semantics game, but after watching Nel's reaction to this new detail in OP's testimony, I believe he caught it, too. It's just not logical to think that you can whisper to your loved one without being close enough to her to see her, hear her and/or feel her. And once you've said you whispered, you cannot say you spoke in a soft tone instead - at least, not without raising suspicion.

OP brought this discrepancy into the mix, by the way, not Nel.

 

[TipDog]

I think Nel is using a technique that he has cleverly honed over the years. OP is giving him so much material to use. In any human interaction, even with challenges and conflicts, the back and forth is a kind of movement. This movement is vital for building rapport, and equally for effecting some change of view. Therapists know that this movement is important in order to create change. If OP just answered in a monosyllabic way, yes or no, Nel would find it difficult to move him on, and expose the contradictions in his testimony. Without movement the exchange would become static, rigid, whilst Nel is provoking him to keep moving.

Nel is well aware of the type of ego he has on his hands and what an amazing benefit this is to the State's case. It will be very interesting to see if it works and if justice will prevail.

 

[aoibhinn]

OP has been staying at Uncle Arnold's.

Now in Court, Oscar said he has not been back to his home since the shooting.

But recall at least 1 earwitness said in early March or thereabouts, she heard a male scream in a high pitched voice coming from Oscar's home. Does it make sense to have anyone else do the screaming?

And does it make sense to have Oscar scream from a different place--unless it was just to test his voice and not the accoustics between the witnesses' home's and Oscar's.

But there could be some interesting witnesses even after Oscar leaves the stand. I am sure we all want to give DT every opportunity to make their case.

...even after Oscar did much to unmake it.

BIB This could have been to test how the sound travelled over distance.

I'm wondering if the 'scream test' at his uncle's house was an attempt to replicate the pitch of Oscar's scream? I would question its validity on two points :-

• Allow for multiple practice attempts and select the best one
• Inability to reproduce the emotional context of the night the murder occurred

 

[molly333]

Being on the stand is not OP being in a traumatized mind. He's under duress for sure, but not traumatized (no matter how much he pukes and cries). When he was in a traumatized mindset (presumably) and gave his original statement, he mentioned nothing of either whispering or speaking in a soft tone to Reeva, or speaking to her at all. This is a detail he's now adding to his testimony - and it changes constantly. In fact, the first time he said it, he immediately said he didn't say it. OP isn't the brightest tool in the shed but he isn't entirely stupid, either. Whispering is all about proximity whereas speaking in a soft tone is speaking aloud. Assuming it's dead silent in a room, you will hear a soft tone, but could still miss a whisper.

I realize I'm playing the semantics game, but after watching Nel's reaction to this new detail in OP's testimony, I believe he caught it, too. It's just not logical to think that you can whisper to your loved one without being close enough to them to see them, hear them and/or feel them. And once you've said you whispered, you cannot say you spoke in a soft tone instead - at least, not without raising suspicion.

OP brought this discrepancy into the mix, by the way, not Nel.

She was close enough to hear a whisper or a low tone or a soft tone.

He was on one side of the bed and she was supposed to be on the other.

Trying to characterize what tone of voice to the minute detail of whisper versus soft tone is not only irrelevant, it is ridiculous.

Nel is grasping at straws, and a strong case shouldn't have to grasp at straws.

 

[fox1lady]

I think OP is actually quite lucky there is no jury as I doubt if anyone would feel any sympathy for the cocky little runt... all through this all he thinks about is himself, it's quite unbelievable really!