Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[soozieqtips]

Indeed we do. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. I will say that I resent being prevented from using a perfectly innocuous word by a piece of software.

Am I allowed to say that I was born in Scunthorpe, I wonder? I can!
(I bet you all sn-iggered at that) :giggle:

BBM - I really did!

 

[steveml]

They must have knew he was going to get a mauling, they really should have thought it through a bit more, quality over quantity if you like.

Agreed. He wouldn't have been my choice in such a high profile case.

He came across more like someone who had been recommended by a friend, or a neighbour with a hobby.

 

[Emz73]

I think what you're describing is a crime of passion defence. When someone just snaps. Sometimes, in some jurisdictions, such a defense might lead to a lesser conviction and shorter sentence - like 2nd degree murder instead of 1st.

But South Africa doesn't recognize crime of passion.

Really they don't? Wonder why?

 

[BritsKate]

Agreed. He wouldn't have been my choice in such a high profile case.

He came across more like someone who had been recommended by a friend, or a neighbour with a hobby.

I'd move real quick! :floorlaugh:

 

[Hatfield]

I think what you're describing is a crime of passion defence. When someone just snaps. Sometimes, in some jurisdictions, such a defense might lead to a lesser conviction and shorter sentence - like 2nd degree murder instead of 1st.

But South Africa doesn't recognize crime of passion.

Yes, thank you. That was the term we were thinking about. And yes that is my understanding that here in the states it is a valid form of defense just to get a lighter sentence and not necessarily get off scott free or anything.

For OP sake, its too bad SA does not have that defense. He could have legitimately used that instead. It would have been much more believable. He could have said he found out about an affair or something.

 

[Greater Than]

Please note I am not saying that this is what happened I am offering an opinion as to what the defense’s psychologist will testify to.

I will guess that the psychologist will testify that it is no surprise that Oscar does not remember the dramatic moment of pulling the trigger. We will hear all about Oscar’s inner child and how the man Oscar, lived in a heightened state of paranoia. The psychologist will likely testify that in Oscar’s mind an intruder was in his home and that the intruder put Oscar and Reeva in grave danger, (exasperated by Oscar not having his prosthetics on.) The psychologist will likely maintain that at the moment of pulling the trigger Oscar was in a dissociative state but was immediately brought back to “conscious action” by the sound of the gun shots, the kick back from the gun or some other reason that I have not thought of.

The defense position has not legally changed to “involuntary action,” the dissociative state (involuntary action) is simply part of the proof that Oscar was in sheer terror and reached his tipping point when he turned the corner and heard a sound in the loo. Oscar was still acting in self-defense and with deliberate action since he somewhat remembers (and has testified to) making cognizant decisions up until the point and after the point of firing the gun.

That IMO is the defense in a nut shell.


And there is a difference between exhibiting histrionic behavior and having a histrionic disorder. Oscar displays histrionic behavior but does not present with histrionic disorder.

The alleged "involuntary action" of firing four times through a closed door is not proof he was in a state of terror, it's proof he's reckless.

I really couldn't care less what Ocsar's psychiatrist testifies about his inner child and his heightened state of paranoia. If he is that unstable, he should have never owned a gun loaded with bullets designed to cause maximum damage.

MOO

 

[steveml]

No, DT just made a stupid mistake on picking this expert. He wasn't giving a layperson view of anything. He was represented as an expert.

That's why Roux said he was ducking and diving.

No?

...maybe?

 

[Really?]

Okay, I'll take a step back and admit that those of you stating he mocked her with the helps are making more sense (you're wearing me down!). Although, I still think the actual act of shooting her and murdering her was in rage. And I still think OP is too dense (not intelligent enough) to be a sadistic killer who thought this all out methodically before firing that gun.

But, yes, I agree, perhaps he mocked her.

BBM

he just didn't have time to think......<--------oscar speak lol

 

[Murphys_Law]

bbm - Nel was pretty upset about some hearsay that Mr.D let "slip", anyone catch what that was all about, I really don't want to listen to his testimony again... :/

Darn, I missed that...but like you I just can't subject myself one more time.

 

[Hatfield]

BBM - I really did!

I "snorkled" instead. :floorlaugh:

 

[soozieqtips]

Although he testified that he had been involved since the bail hearing, makes one wonder.

That's right, and then he talked about more information being available later, or something. Maybe he was a 'reserve' expert in case all the others dropped out. I honestly cannot see him being a first choice, a bad choice, yes, but not a first choice.

 

[minor4th]

More than one said a pause, but not much of a pause. He had them speak it out --bang pause bang bang bang.

More than one said the screaming stopped shortly after the 'gunshots.' I noticed that because that was definitely not Reeva. So, maybe they were mistaken, but they did say that.

If that is Oscar, he is screaming after he shoots, all the way through to finally breaking open the closet. Meaning, what they thought was 'gunshots' was really the cricket bat sounding like gunshots.

I think Mrs Burger was the only one who said there was a pause

 

[TorisMom003]

You really think that neighborhood could deal with another 3am shooting?

The defense had no qualms about the neighborhood having to deal with another 3 am scream fest for the purpose of recording it. Why not do the test the proper way with the bat and swing it to a door in the bathroom?

 

[TipDog]

That's a good point, Tipdog. Let's assume he did. It makes total sense given that he was not yet sure that Reeva was in the toilet. Notice that the histrionics only ever occur when he is unsure of something or fears for his safety because all his life he has felt vulnerable on his stumps, and this is the way he reacts to perceived danger to himself. The only way he has ever been able to protect himself from that very real vulnerability is to shout for help.

As soon as he becomes aware that there is in fact no danger and no further uncertainty but rather he has made a ghastly mistake, a different emotion takes over: one of extreme inner and private anguish.




He didn't. He said that he checked the balcony when he went on it to shout for help. But also it wasn't in Reeva's character to simply abandon him. According to his sister, she was very assertive and would not have just run away from trouble and he would have guessed that. Then again, he didn't say he knew she was there. He FEARED she was in there. Big difference. In a situation like that you fear the worst and eliminate that option first. Finally, as he stated, he wasn't thinking rationally.




Well he wasn't on his stumps by then, he was on his prosthetics, and he was shouting for Reeva the whole time. I think he realised that it was almost certainly here in the toilet because she would have replied otherwise. And he has a habit of not considering alternatives when he believes one things or the other is true.

BIB 1

I'm very unclear what you mean by that. What other examples can you provide of his histrionics occurring only when he's unsure about something? (and if you are right, boy does that shine an even harsher light on his testimony...but I digress). Also, I don't agree with the idea that "the only way he has ever been able to protect himself from that very real vulnerability is to shout for help." If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion as he more likely would have called security for help than he would have grabbed his gun in the one moment he claims he felt the most vulnerable in his life - so vulnerable that (per his version) his fingers shot that gun without any input from his brain or intent.

BIB 2

Also confused on this point. How do you know this about him? From my observation of him in court, it appears to me that he does not keep his anguish private in the least - doesn't even make an attempt.

BIB 3

This was a very short and still new relationship at the time. It isn't likely that Reeva would have felt some great responsibility not to leave that room and seek help. And, if you want to believe OP's version, then you have to admit he gave her permission to leave when he told her to call the police and then took off leaving her there without a weapon to protect herself (or help him should he have gotten overpowered). It would have been up to her whether or not she should "get down" to do so on her cell phone or, after OP started all that blood curdling screaming like a woman he claims to have done, she most logically would have gotten out of there (flight response). Lastly, if she'd phoned the police, they'd have most likely have told her to get out of the room. This is all my conjecture, of course. Because who knows - maybe if this had happened and RS was in the bed, she'd have grabbed OP's arm and begged him to leave the room with her (a voice of reason). But we all know the reality.

BIB 4

I would think that if he feared she was in there and then found her to be in there that he would scream the loudest once his fears were realized, not the other way around. That kind of discovery should have sent him over the top and he should have called 911 immediately. Of course, if accepting his version, he should have called 911 when he thought he heard an intruder to begin with, but alas...here we are.

BIB 5

And this is the part that doesn't sit with me at all. In sheer terror and fear of thinking there was an intruder, he didn't take the time to put his legs on which would have made him less vulnerable and more capable of protecting Reeva which is what he swears he was doing, yet in sheer terror and fear of thinking he shot her but not yet knowing so, he took the time, while screaming like a woman, to stop and put his legs on. I'm sorry, but I see no logic in that in any world other than OP's made up fantasy land version.

 

[Bazinga]

You have to put all of this into context. Like many people with physical disabilities, they tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic in situation in which most others would not be. We've seen this in his court behaviour. So, I can easily see how someone like this who moreover feels extremely vulnerable on his stumps might get himself into a frenzied state because he is panicking and then feel like an idiot and shocked into a prolonged silence when he finds out that he shot Reevan and not an intruder.

I agree Oscar displays histrionic behaviour eg in court - blocking ears, vomiting, head holding, hiding behind the bench and during testimony his howling, sobbing, crying especially when it occurred during testimony not related to Reeva.
It sounds like Aimee is displaying some similar behaviours in court which isn't acceptable no matter how hard it is. Victim's family members often step out of court during particularly difficult testimony out of respect for the court.

BUT re BIB
I take great exception to your stereotyping of people with disabilities. In my work I have met and cared for many many people with disabilities and my experience is completely the opposite. I don't think Oscar's histrionics are a part of being disabled but rather a personality trait and probably exacerbated by his family pandering to him and his behaviour through his childhood and into adulthood.

 

[Emz73]

i "snorkled" instead. :floorlaugh:

snork.

 

[Mr Ron]

That's a very good point, but do you know what? I think things were happening much faster than they appeared because of the way Nel slowed down the narrative. In the event Reeva did have her phone out and it was on (according to OP), so she was probably going in the process of complying.

(Response to my question as to why Reeva had not phoned the police as Oscar had requested)

That is a possibility, but I've just run through Pistorius' testimony and it seems he was at pains to point out how slowly he approached the danger in the bathroom once he screamed for Reeva to phone the police.

I've taken the liberty of sketching out the relevant sections of his testimony below:

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF (session 3, Tuesday 8th April) - ​

1.16.20 &#8211;​

&#8220;Just before I got to the passage I remember slowing down.&#8221;​

1.17.15 &#8211;​

&#8220;As I entered the passage where the closet is to the bathroom, it was at that point that I was overcome with fear and started screaming and shouting for the intruders to get out of my house. I shouted for Reeva to get on the floor, I shouted for her to phone the police.&#8221;​

1.18.00 -​

&#8220;I slowly made my way down the passage&#8221;​

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF (Session 4, Tuesday 8th April)​

3.23 &#8211;​

&#8220;I didn&#8217;t have as much mobility on the tiled surfaces.&#8221;​

4.20 &#8211;​

&#8220;As I slowly peered into the bathroom I could see that the window was open&#8221;​

4.40 &#8211;​

&#8220;I was leaning, slowly scuffling, my back against the wall&#8221;

He then describes how he peered round the corner to look at the shower and upon realising there is no-one there backs up against the far wall&#8230;​

6.35 &#8211;​

&#8220;At this point I started screaming again for Reeva to call the police&#8230;.. I stood there for some time. I&#8217;m not sure how long.... I just stayed where I was and carried on screaming...didn&#8217;t know where to point the gun&#8230;and then I heard a noise from inside the toilet&#8230;.before I knew it I had fired four shots at the door."​

CROSS EXAM (Friday, 11th April)​

2.30.05 -​

&#8220;I rushed towards where the passage and bedroom meet my lady, just before you enter the passage.&#8221;​

2.31.15 -​

PT &#8211; &#8220;And that&#8217;s why you stormed, you wanted to shoot&#8221;
OP &#8211; &#8220;We are talking about two separate times in the evening, I didn&#8217;t storm to the bathroom my lady, I ran to where the passage began and then I walked extremely slowly and cautiously to just before the corner where the bathroom passage is.&#8221;​

2.34.35 -​

OP: &#8220;I started screaming and shouting my lady as I entered the passageway.&#8221;
PT: &#8220;And what did you shout and scream?&#8221;
OP: &#8220;I screamed for the persons to get out of my house, I screamed for Reeva to phone the police, I repeated it several times.&#8221;​

2.48.35 -​

&#8220;&#8230;I didn&#8217;t form an arc and trim the wall, I walked all the way down the closet to the last cupboard&#8230;I slowly moved forward along the carpet to where the tiles begin.​

____________________________________________

So on his evidence we know he slowed down to an extremely slow pace from just before the passage. That he then shouted at Steenkamp to call the police at that point. He then continued extremely slowly down the passage screaming &#8216;several times&#8217; - each of which would have taken at least some portion of time. He then must have taken a moment to become quiet and to peer into the bathroom passage. After discovering it to be clear he then slowly edged to the last closet, moved forward (slowly scuffled) down the bathroom corridor with decreased mobility and peered into the bathroom. He then took a moment to note the absence of enemies, an open window and a closed bathroom door. He then backs up to the wall where he stays for some time, and again starts screaming for Steenkamp to phone the police.

To me this seems ample time for a person in the toilet to comply with his initial request to phone the police.

Links

Evidence in chief

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg (session 3 Tuesday 8th April)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmadaSpdQdI (session 4 Tuesday 8th April)


X Exam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvvA4cL5Zc (Friday 11th

 

[Carmelita]

The alleged "involuntary action" of firing four times through a closed door is not proof he was in a state of terror, it's proof he's reckless.

I really couldn't care less what Ocsar's psychiatrist testifies about his inner child and his heightened state of paranoia. If he is that unstable, he should have never owned a gun loaded with bullets designed to cause maximum damage.

MOO

I did not state that he was in a state of terror. I don’t know if he was or was not. Oscar testified that he was in a state of terror and it is a large portion of his self-defense.

Either way his action was reckless.

I would agree with you, Oscar would have done well to hire a couple of armed guards for security as he was not a responsible gun owner by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[TorisMom003]

(Response to my question as to why Reeva had not phoned the police as Oscar had requested)

That is a possibility, but I've just run through Pistorius' testimony and it seems he was at pains to point out how slowly he approached the danger in the bathroom once he screamed for Reeva to phone the police.

I've taken the liberty of sketching out the relevant sections of his testimony below:

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF (session 3, Tuesday 8th April) - ​

1.16.20 –​

“Just before I got to the passage I remember slowing down.”​

1.17.15 –​

“As I entered the passage where the closet is to the bathroom, it was at that point that I was overcome with fear and started screaming and shouting for the intruders to get out of my house. I shouted for Reeva to get on the floor, I shouted for her to phone the police.”​

1.18.00 -​

“I slowly made my way down the passage”​

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF (Session 4, Tuesday 8th April​

3.23 –​

“I didn’t have as much mobility on the tiled surfaces.”​

4.20 –​

“As I slowly peered into the bathroom I could see that the window was open”​

4.40 –​

“I was leaning, slowly scuffling, my back against the wall”

He then describes how he peered round the corner to look at the shower and upon realising there is no-one there backs up against the far wall…​

6.35 –​

“At this point I started screaming again for Reeva to call the police….. I stood there for some time. I’m not sure how long.... I just stayed where I was and carried on screaming...didn’t know where to point the gun…and then I heard a noise from inside the toilet….before I knew it I had fired four shots at the door."​

CROSS EXAM (Friday, 11th April)​

2.30.05 -​

“I rushed towards where the passage and bedroom meet my lady, just before you enter the passage.”​

2.31.15 -​

PT – “And that’s why you stormed, you wanted to shoot”
OP – “We are talking about two separate times in the evening, I didn’t storm to the bathroom my lady, I ran to where the passage began and then I walked extremely slowly and cautiously to just before the corner where the bathroom passage is.”​

2.34.35 -​

OP: “I started screaming and shouting my lady as I entered the passageway.”
PT: “And what did you shout and scream?”
OP: “I screamed for the persons to get out of my house, I screamed for Reeva to phone the police, I repeated it several times.”​

2.48.35 -​

“…I didn’t form an arc and trim the wall, I walked all the way down the closet to the last cupboard…I slowly moved forward along the carpet to where the tiles begin.​

____________________________________________

So on his evidence we know he slowed down to an extremely slow pace from just before the passage. That he then shouted at Steenkamp to call the police at that point. He then continued extremely slowly down the passage screaming ‘several times’. Each of which would have taken at least some portion of time. He then must have taken a moment to become quiet and to peer into the bathroom passage. After discovering it to be clear he then slowly edged to the last closet, moved forward (slowly scuffled) down the bathroom corridor with decreased mobility and peered into the bathroom. He then took a moment to note the absence of enemies, an open window and a closed bathroom door. He then backs up to the wall where he stays for some time, and again starts screaming for Steenkamp to phone the police.

To me this seems ample time for a person in the toilet to comply with his initial request to phone the police.

Links

Evidence in chief

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg (session 3 Tuesday 8th April)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmadaSpdQdI (session 4 Tuesday 8th April)


X Exam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvvA4cL5Zc (Friday 11th

Which points to OP's version of yelling to Reeva to phone police is a lie OR Reeva never had the phone with her in the toilet room like OP claimed she did which is also then a lie.

MOO

 

[James50]

Oh, yeah, I remember that.

hmmm...


Because the day before he was all gungho about discussing the final piece of OP's story, --I was sure he would deal with the key and breaking in of the door, and holding her for five minutes---he could have really worked him over, but he didn't. Just sort of fizzled...

Molly, good point. I think after being cocksure for days that OP was guilty, it seemed to me that Nel was starting to come to the horrible (well, horrible for him) realisation that he might be telling the truth after all. That's why he began to talk about negligence (i.e. setting things up for culpable homicide), and, in the end, instead of saying "You say, x, y, z happened," he kept asking OP "what happened next?" and countering very little of what OP replied. He looked distinctly uncomfortable towards the end, and when OP countered his accusations, I saw him actually flinch. In finally laying down his conclusion, he was stroking his nose. Don't know what a psychologist would say about that, but it's often saif that people stroke their nose when they're lying.