Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[minor4th]

Stalking falls under the umbrella of psychological abuse. Your interpretation, the statute you work with, is dependent on jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction is different, ergo, their definitions and interpretations will also vary. There are places in the world where emotional abuse is a chargeable offence and an abuser can be imprisoned for it.

But I fear I'm going down a rabbit hole and taking this thread O/T. I understand you don't believe Oscar and Reeva's relationship was an abusive one and while I have my doubts, I really just wanted to make sure to state emotional abuse was seen as 'domestic violence' as there are still way too many who minimize its effects or potential lethality. On that at least, it would seem we agree.

Another O/T - but in Texas there was not a meaningful stalking statute until 2009. Stalking can also be the basis for a protective order but it's not included in the definition of "Family Violence"

 

[weeeva]

IMO Oscar's memory is cloudy because he doesn't remember what his story line is supposed to be. If he does not remember something, he should say so, not make something up.

I did not catch Nel's "blunder" this morning, but if you read OP's affidavit again and then listen to his testimony these last few days, you may wonder about many things that were crucial and were left out of both the bail hearing affidavit AND his trial statement.

Interesting that his memory would be sharper today rather than a few days after it happened.

Interesting to me that you have picked up on a few minutes of the day, yet OP was testifying for hours. Does he pass with flying colors in your opinion?

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:

 

[Gavel Rash]

Considering psychological evidence that 'smell' can invoke a total recall of memory from traumatic events, I think it may be an appropriate time to introduce a scratch and sniff card, Polyester-ish like, impregnated with Reevas blood to the witness stand and watch Oscars nose lead us to the truth.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/Bernstein_Loftus_TrueFalseMem_POPS09.pdf

 

[aoibhinn]

You can't compare everyday events to something like this though, i can't remember half the stuff i bought on my weekly food shop earlier this afternoon, but ask me for example about what i remember doing on september 11th 2001 or july 7th 2005 and i can recall many small things from those day's that i would never normally remember, i'm prety sure if i "accidentally" shot dead my wife i would remember with total clarity almost every detail of the events that led upto it.

This is correct according to current memory science.

Take for example the events of Sept. 11. Almost everyone (over a decade later) will remember rich details of their whereabouts when they learned of this event. However, they may not remember July 18th, 2007 because nothing emotionally significant (or traumatic) occurred to them on that day.

The storage of traumatic memories/memories associated with strong emotion is quite different from the mundane. The storage of repeated traumatic of the same type of events (e.g. abuse) is different again.

Neutral events are generally not stored in long-term memory, they fade over time. Traumatic or highly emotional events trigger the amygdala, which in turn causes a specific protein to be produced in the brain. Scientists believe that this protein strengthens synapses in the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with long term memory storage.

Here's a link to a research paper on the subject:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3329795/

 

[atthelake]

If OP flips between punitive self defence and involuntary action, doesn't that really blow his entire defence out of the water?

I didn't think he'd be allowed to change half way through a trial? That would be something that was established on day one.

I posed that question this morning on the threads and waiting for an answer also. Was interesting that the judge asked to meet with both attys after this am ended and that further peaked my curiosity that there might be a discussion of such. Perhaps there will be a MSM article posted before tonight's 3:30 am trial. (hehe, using Eastern time here sorry)

 

[Gavel Rash]

This is correct according to current memory science.

Take for example the events of Sept. 11. Almost everyone (over a decade later) will remember rich details of their whereabouts when they learned of this event. However, they may not remember July 18th, 2007 because nothing emotionally significant (or traumatic) occurred to them on that day.

The storage of traumatic memories/memories associated with strong emotion is quite different from the mundane. The storage of repeated traumatic of the same type of events (e.g. abuse) is different again.

Neutral events are generally not stored in long-term memory, they fade over time. Traumatic or highly emotional events trigger the amygdala, which in turn causes a specific protein to be produced in the brain. Scientists believe that this protein strengthens synapses in the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with long term memory storage.

Here's a link to a research paper on the subject:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3329795/

Exactly , hence the guttural recall with emotional detail he invoked with the words, because they are truth.
"GET THE ****, OUT OF MY HOUSE!!! GET THE ****, OUT OF MY HOUSE! "

 

[minor4th]

I posed that question this morning on the threads and waiting for an answer also. Was interesting that the judge asked to meet with both attys after this am ended and that further peaked my curiosity that there might be a discussion of such. Perhaps there will be a MSM article posted before tonight's 3:30 am trial. (hehe, using Eastern time here sorry)

Hey ATL - I did address this in an earlier post:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 24

 

[weeeva]

kittychi

Sorry I forgot to reply to the last part of your post, where you ask me if I thought he passed with flying colours. No as a matter of fact I am not of the opinion that he passes with flying colours. Why would you assume that would be my opinion?

 

[Gryffindor]

This is correct according to current memory science.

Take for example the events of Sept. 11. Almost everyone (over a decade later) will remember rich details of their whereabouts when they learned of this event. However, they may not remember July 18th, 2007 because nothing emotionally significant (or traumatic) occurred to them on that day.

The storage of traumatic memories/memories associated with strong emotion is quite different from the mundane. The storage of repeated traumatic of the same type of events (e.g. abuse) is different again.

Neutral events are generally not stored in long-term memory, they fade over time. Traumatic or highly emotional events trigger the amygdala, which in turn causes a specific protein to be produced in the brain. Scientists believe that this protein strengthens synapses in the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with long term memory storage.

Here's a link to a research paper on the subject:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3329795/

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.

 

[TipDog]

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:

The way I interpret it is that Nel is saying it's impossible for OP not to remember certain very important details and yet remember minutia (that, coincidentally, often supports his version of the evening). Generally, I would think it's the other way around when under duress, is it not? (I ask genuinely as I haven't researched it).

Also, Nel and his team have studied this evidence in a manner none of us have. I'm betting there is a method to his madness that we simply can't see as we don't have it outlined for us down to the very tiniest of details in evidence. Lastly, Nel has not put forth a version other than there being an argument and OP murdering Reeva on purpose - but the page is still blank. What's troubling for OP is that he is rattled not by any suggestions of Nel's but by getting tripped up on his (OP's) very own recounting of what happened and Nel catching him. Not to make light of a very horrible ordeal, but it's like a poorly acted "Who's on First" routine, if you ask me, with Nel coming out ahead.

As for the judge, with all due respect, you do not know that she was "sick of it." She's worked with Nel before and she's been reeling him in when necessary, but for the most part, both Roux and Nel are getting away with FAR more than they would in the states. Here, with a jury looking on, the D/PT have to be very sensitive to how they word their arguments when dealing with witnesses and defendants. I'm actually shocked at just what is said in this CE without Roux jumping up every two minutes to object. When I first started watching, I thought perhaps he'd fallen asleep.

 

[luvmygarden]

Apr 14 Session 3
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

@15:45 Nel starts talking about the moments immediately after the shots.

@16:50
Nel: why would you scream, why would you scream out
OP: I was scared. I wanted to ask Reeva why is she phoning the police

Unless I heard incorrectly, that is a BOMBSHELL ...possibly the prime motive for snuffing her out -- he was afraid she was going to call the police!

I think in his confused state on the stand at that moment, op got the contexts of his post kill screams mixed up with pre-kill screams.

I heard that too. Rewatched 3x and I think Nel caught it but like us he will have to reassure himself that is what he heard too. Tomorrow will be interesting I can't wait to see if he hears what he heard.

 

[Carmelita]

If OP flips between punitive self defence and involuntary action, doesn't that really blow his entire defence out of the water?

I didn't think he'd be allowed to change half way through a trial? That would be something that was established on day one.

Nel has skirted this issue.

Oscar’s current working defense is that he was capable of rational thought, capable of believing that an intruder was in his bathroom, rational enough to know that he shouldn’t shoot a warning shot as it could ricochet and hurt him and rational enough to know to bend his elbow so that an intruder could not wrestle the gun from his hand as he rounded a corner. Then he rounded that corner and heard a noise in the bathroom and it is then he lost all sense of reasoning and shot 4 bullets without intending to kill anyone. That is his story. So what Nel, Oscar’s defense and the judge will do with that morass of a defense is anyone’s guess.

 

[supernovaNic]

OMG I'm watching today's vid now. About the key. DO YOU NEED THE KEY TO LOCK THE DOOR? It seems you do? I thought it was like if you accidentally hit the knobpushbottom type lock you would need the key.

 

[soozieqtips]

Most damning of all was the noise Pistorius has claimed to have heard, of the toilet door slamming, but which was not mentioned either in his bail application last year, or his plea explanation this time round.

It is a crucial noise. It is that which convinced Pistorius an intruder was in his toilet.

At his bail application, Pistorius claimed: "I saw the bathroom door was closed and I thought someone could be in there."

"There's not a single word of that door closing in your bail application. Why?" Nel asked him.

“I’m not sure, my lady,” Pistorius replied.

“It’s not in your plea explanation either, why is that?”

“I’m not sure, my lady.”

“If you said it to [your own defence] counsel? Why did they not put it in?”

Again, the reply was the same.

“I’m not sure, my lady.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-with-intensive-crossexamination-9259623.html

 

[BritsKate]

I posed that question this morning on the threads and waiting for an answer also. Was interesting that the judge asked to meet with both attys after this am ended and that further peaked my curiosity that there might be a discussion of such. Perhaps there will be a MSM article posted before tonight's 3:30 am trial. (hehe, using Eastern time here sorry)

It's been debated. I've got a couple of posts about it too but there is also an article I found. Here you go:

Oscar Pistorius appears to change his defense under questioning


An update to the article:

South African attorney Tyrone Maseko tweeted that the new defense is “problematic for his team. U have to admit intentional shooting (at intruder) for putative def.” He added in another tweet: “Putative private defense means u believed (wrongly) u were entitled to shoot.”]

 

[aoibhinn]

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.

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.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why, he asked, had Reeva gone to the toilet in the dark, not switched any lights on.

She had, Pistorius claimed, probably used the light from her cellphone

But in the pitch darkness, why had he not seen this light, if the tiny light from the amplifier was bothering him so much?

He said the light had had been "behind him", but the geographical layout of the room is unconvincing on this point.

It is a 90-degree turn from where he claims he had been bringing in two fans from his balcony.

His cross examination is expected to last perhaps another two full days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-with-intensive-crossexamination-9259623.html

 

[Really?]

Yelling is rude and perhaps abusive but it is not violent. And I do not believe Batchelor's story of OP threatening to break his legs.

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

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Let's not forget, from OP's own mouth, he does not remember walking down the hallway with her.

He remembers in great detail exactly how he got her out of the toilet, how hard it was to pick her up, what he said to Johan Stander on the phone, then finally being able to pick her up.... BUT he magically does not remember walking from the bathroom to the middle landing of the stairs... not the top of the stairs... specifically the middle landing

Why?

That is the exact area that has arterial spurt on the walls, etc.

What the heck happened in that exact stretch of his room and hall that he doesn't want to talk about.

His fingers in her mouth ...?

 

[aa9511]

The problem is, without some history of violence or threats, you can't make a rational leap to the conclusion that on that night he lost his temper and couldn't control himself so reached for his gun and killed Reeva. There's no context for that.

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......{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.