Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Estelle]

If everything in this article is true, this is an even more disturbing picture of OP. These incidents may just be the tip of the iceberg. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and this does not bode well for OP. Will he finally be held accountable?

I read this article probably in the first few days after the incident. I became interested in this case as soon as I saw the news with the policewoman outside his home that morning explaining that there had been previous incidents at his house. So I suspected it was a domestic violence/murder case immediately.

I joined the thread on Websleuths very soon after. I read everything I could about him. When I heard his version, I thought it was all a lie. I followed the bail hearing and was shocked he got bail. I realised that he was lying and a narcissist. But I also thought he must be crazy to have killed such a beautiful woman (on purpose) and to have jeopardised his athletics career later losing all his sponsorships.

I am not surprised that he is now being evaluated as it is about time. I do not think he has ever been punished in his life and he has to learn to take responsibility for his actions. Originally, I thought he would claim diminished responsibility as his behaviour seemed so bizarre that I assumed that he must have something wrong with him psychologically but it was not GAD that I thought he might have.

 

[CriLondon]

That's always been one of those little bits of information that makes me lean toward guilt. Why would he look at her phone with sufficient attention to know that it is locked under the circumstances. One reason would be to see if she had called or texted someone -- either because he thought she might have called/texted someone about what was going on or out of a jealous desire to know what she was doing with her phone in the toilet in the middle of the night. Another reason could be out of a non-jealous desire to explain why she was with her phone in the toilet leading to him mistaking her for an intruder.

I think the former explanation(s) are much more likely. jmo

I agree , it is at least to me , very suspicious that he would handle her phone. I was a bit surprised when under cross-exam Nel didn't really push for this or at least argue the point more. I tend to think Nel did not have enough to go on with other than logic.

 

[Murphys_Law]

So was Nel possibly thinking that OP threw Reeva's phone into the fish pond near the front door so it would not work any more to phone for help and he/she later took it up to the bathroom? They possibly had a struggle downstairs with that phone.

Yes, along those lines.
Given the hour long argument preceding the shots as testified by the ear-witness Mrs Merwe, who lives diagonally across the street from OP, and given that OP's kitchen is at the front of the house, and that the first responders (Standers) all stated that the kitchen lights were on, it is likely the early conflict did start down stairs near the kitchen/front door area. Perhaps Reeva was trying to leave, a physical confrontation occurred outside the front portal close to the fish pond, and OP knocked the phone out of her hand and into the pond it skid ...all speculation of course.

Admittedly, I am very guilty of perhaps reading too much every little nugget of info that Nel seems to point out. In my defence, there were over 7000 crime scene photos taken, and this has been distilled down to 2 or 3 hundred of which even fewer are shown in court, thus I tend to look for the significance of each and every item in the photos.

 

[Gryffindor]

Carmelita, you are not alone, rest assured. I'm in your corner and agree with your eloquent, unbiased, considered posts: based on evidence; not assumption or ideals.

 

[Karmady]

Carmelita, you are not alone, rest assured. I'm in your corner and agree with your eloquent, unbiased, considered posts: based on evidence; not assumption or ideals.

I'll chime in here with some support for the contrarians since I'm often one myself.

 

[Estelle]

Hi, Cape Town Crim. New poster here - don't think we've met. :seeya:
Just watched Dr Vorster's entrance and Mr Roux's obvious reaction. (Very impressed by Roxanne Adams response. She obviously wasn't taking the rap for this one. Good on her!
Thing is, when would Roux have had the opportunity to have any kind of useful "chat" with her in front of the whole court? He made no move to leave court to intercept her himself, yet was obviously, as you pointed out, very unhappy with the situation.
Apologies if anyone else has asked this in the meantime, I'm only on page 2 of this thread and wasn't sure I'd have time to catch up before the convo had moved on.

I have a feeling that Dr Vorster did this report begrudgingly or felt she could not say "no" and did not realise what she was in for. My prediction of her behaviour is that she wrote it up the night before as it was obvious that Roux had not seen it as he asked her for a copy.

I also suspect that she knew that court and how she could get in by that other door and she wanted to avoid Roux and his team. Also she probably knew that she would have to reveal a few things when Nel cross-examined her as she was not going to lie.

When I read that link that PatCee gave us about the PhD dissertation, I read that only one of those awaiting trial in the hospital out of about 300, suffered from an anxiety disorder.

 

[nastasya]

The Tasha’s incident and Oscar’s refusal to admit that he pulled the trigger under oath is bizarre in its scope. This to me was one of the first signs that there is something more going on with Oscar’s cognition rather than him simply trying to manipulate the court. He is an emotionally unstable man, he exhibits maladaptive qualities, what all that means as to a mental health defect, will hopefully be somewhat clarified by the independent mental health professionals who are to evaluate him.

...or he's just a narcissistic sociopath with criminal tendencies, like so many others who fill our prisons because they've killed somebody.

 

[Nausicaa]

He's a jerk. Got it. I think that lady got understandably upset by a foul mouthed drunk OP, but methinks she exaggerated when accusing him if deliberately shoving her. By her own account he was stumbling drunk...

Jerk and shouty and rude and sexist...that actually describes a large contingent of successful male athletes here in the USA, and elsewhere. Throw in the sense of entitlement, anger issues and whatever else and find a person to avoid...but a gigantic leap to equate that with a murderer. JMO

Absolutely. Before concluding that he was a murderer too you would wait for him to commit a murder...

 

[nastasya]

What I did read there is one more example of OP hearing a noise - the washing machine and instantly reaching for his gun. THAT track record IMO is firmly established, on point, and most relevant.

Um... yeah.... hearing noises and reaching for guns to go on attack mode is why he was arrested in charged with murder.

Just because you're on stumps doesn't mean you can go commando and shoot at unarmed imaginary intruders you've told to leave your house.

Let's come back to the other side of the looking glass, and realize OP's own version of the killing is still murder - it's criminal homicide to pursue another person and intentionally shoot them dead while they are retreating after warning them to leave.

 

[Karmady]

I have a feeling that Dr Vorster did this report begrudgingly or felt she could not say "no" and did not realise what she was in for. My prediction of her behaviour is that she wrote it up the night before as it was obvious that Roux had not seen it as he asked her for a copy.

I also suspect that she knew that court and how she could get in by that other door and she wanted to avoid Roux and his team. Also she probably knew that she would have to reveal a few things when Nel cross-examined her as she was not going to lie.

When I read that link that PatCee gave us about the PhD dissertation, I read that only one of those awaiting trial in the hospital out of about 300, suffered from an anxiety disorder.

The experts call the shots, not the other way around, imo. And they make a pretty penny doing it. Imo, an experienced testifying psych is not going to purposefully do anything whatsoever to undermine the case of the person who retained her-e.g. be retained grudgingly or attempt to purposefully avoid Roux in court. She'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

jmo

 

[Emz73]

He's a jerk. Got it. I think that lady got understandably upset by a foul mouthed drunk OP, but methinks she exaggerated when accusing him if deliberately shoving her. By her own account he was stumbling drunk...

Jerk and shouty and rude and sexist...that actually describes a large contingent of successful male athletes here in the USA, and elsewhere. Throw in the sense of entitlement, anger issues and whatever else and find a person to avoid...but a gigantic leap to equate that with a murderer. JMO

Our athletes in the UK are certainly NOT like that! Professional hard working people. If they were they would be in our papers every 5 minutes, we are terrible for gossip and phone hacking.
I can't think of one that has entitlement, anger, sexist, that get drunk etc issues. Men who kill their partners are often described like that though! Abusers.

 

[Karmady]

R

Our athletes in the UK are certainly NOT like that! Professional hard working people. If they were they would be in our papers every 5 minutes, we are terrible for gossip and phone hacking.
I can't think of one that has entitlement, anger, sexist, that get drunk etc issues. Men who kill their partners are often described like that though! Abusers.

Are these not UK athletes? (Serious question -- I don't know anything at all about UK sports) Or maybe you're being facetious

snipped from the link:

The victim claims she repeatedly told the men to stop and to get off her but she was overpowered and repeatedly raped.

The woman met the Colombian-born footballer on a night-out with friends in Romford nightclub Liquid, and remembers leaving the club with them before losing her friend.

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/football_star_accused_of_part_in_gang_rape_1_3429456

 

[sleuth-d-]

snipped for space

Wow, this is a fascinating comment (your entire comment). Thank you so much.

I left this part in because I must have looked away at the moment of this interaction -- I went and found it so I could watch it.
Go to 1:28:00 as W leaves the stand and you'll see it...very interesting for anyone else who hadn't seen it:
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 12 May 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

yes it appears the defence were caught out here with their own witness.
note how roux asks if vorster has copies of her report. and copies of her cv. i bet he was hoping she would say no to both or either question. to allow for a quick photocopying [and witness briefing] break.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Good morning from a very chilly Cape Town. ,

<snip>


4. I fully believe that Oscar WAS evaluated by clinical teams before the trial, and it was decided very quickly to bury those reports and not use them at all. Barry would have been extremely negligent if he had NOT done this pre-trial. And whilst he had the client from hell, he is not negligent. I also believe firmly that these reports would have been damning. Besides this, Oscar himself would be fighting ‘tooth and nail’ to avoid any sort of ‘exploration of his mind’ – in fact probably performing and posturing terribly the entire time said tests were conducted pre-trial. He is aware on some level that he has a personality disorder (I state this from MOO, but with some certainty) as are most – qualified clinicians or not. Oscar’s history attests to this.
The fights
The firearm carelessness
The speeding
The recklessness
Etc

Be reminded that ALL of these factors, conveniently left out in terms of Dr Vorster’s evaluation, WILL be considered in the upcoming one.



<snip>

**Sorry for any typos etc – rushed post with more to come

snips by me
bbm

Re: negligent barry.

"Barry would have been extremely negligent if he had NOT done this pre-trial."

no, no, no. are you saying that there were psych reports and then roux buried them because they were damning? this would indeed be even more negligent by roux imo. to put op up for trial knowing he was unfit medically/mentally... legally!! are you sure... highly unlikely he would risk that - for his client's sake, or for his own professional sake... not so?

moo.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Hi, Cape Town Crim. New poster here - don't think we've met. :seeya:
Just watched Dr Vorster's entrance and Mr Roux's obvious reaction. (Very impressed by Roxanne Adams response. She obviously wasn't taking the rap for this one. Good on her!
Thing is, when would Roux have had the opportunity to have any kind of useful "chat" with her in front of the whole court? He made no move to leave court to intercept her himself, yet was obviously, as you pointed out, very unhappy with the situation.
Apologies if anyone else has asked this in the meantime, I'm only on page 2 of this thread and wasn't sure I'd have time to catch up before the convo had moved on.

Hi :seeya:

Sorry, I realize now that what I wrote I didn't make much sense. Roux himself would not have had the chat with her - he leaves that to Brian Webber and Roxanne Adams. But: his instruction, pre-discussed with instructing attorney Webber and candidate attorney Adams. One of them usually goes to 'fetch' the next witness for the DT - sometimes leaving the courtroom quite some time before the witness is actually called. In the same way Mike van Aardt collected the PT witnesses.
There is always a last minute instruction for them in a high profile case like this (in run of the mill cases, a court orderly usually calls witnesses) which is why a member of the team will want that few minutes with an important witness. I.e: don't fall into a trap re: diagnosis, focus on the vulnerability more than than the anxiety etc - or whatever Roux's instructions were.

Adams did run out to fetch her, and I firmly believe wanted to relay final messages etc - ESPECIALLY in Dr Vorsters case, as the DT would only have had the 'bare' outline of her hastily compiled report.
Adams stays away for some time, and no-one comes in. Barry asks for 5 mins. The M'lady says, "someone has come in". Adams returns and then Barry lambasts her. She attempts to explain that Dr Vorster had gone round the other way (Barry smartly turns back to camera position at this stage).

I believe he asked her if she had spoken to Dr Vorster, and she said NO, then tried to explain why.

The whole event was too weird for words.

All IMHO of course - but that's what I read from it. :blushing:

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

snips by me
bbm

Re: negligent barry.

"Barry would have been extremely negligent if he had NOT done this pre-trial."

no, no, no. are you saying that there were psych reports and then roux buried them because they were damning? this would indeed be even more negligent by roux imo. to put op up for trial knowing he was unfit medically/mentally... legally!! are you sure... highly unlikely he would risk that - for his client's sake, or for his own professional sake... not so?

moo.

OP has the right to not incriminate himself in any way, shape or form. I believe these tests were carried out shortly after the shooting, as is standard. The state can not enforce them, but as a matter of procedure in cases such as this, the DT usually runs the necessary. I'm sure Oscar performed and whinged insisting there is nothing wrong with him, but would have begrudgingly participated.

Apart from what one would expect from a traumatized person, I do believe there might have been a few concerns. Bury them - in the same way the DT under a blanket of silence can bury pretty much anything it wants to in SA.

Barry has in no way misled the court by doing this. Tis their right. Their tests, their decision in what to do with them.

That said, Barry might have suggested from the get-go that Oscar plead and utilize an illness of the mind (real or fabricated) - but I'm sure our friend would have none of it.

The last thing OP wants it to be seen even MORE different. He believes in his own perfection.

I have no way of ever proving these tests took place, and I might be terribly wrong. I just reckon they DT have some indication that all is not 'grand' in the psyche.......due to previous evaluation.

We will never know I guess, in the same way we will never know what really happened that evening :banghead: Frustrates me no end.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I believe the correct term is 'snipped'….. I am learning all the time on here!

Jay Jay - I was talking about this with a friend yesterday - what if the 'Independent' was not so 'Independent.' My response to them as it is to your point, is that whilst a lay person might think this a possibility, in reality, it cannot be so. As professionals, they should have a general census.

Remember the Autopsy? For the Prosecution, Pathologist Gert Saayman concluded that Reeva ate a couple of hours before her death. The defence team disagreed but their Pathologist, Reggie Perumal would not take take the stand. This was because before he left the Autopsy room, he & Saayman would have had a broad sense of agreement and unless he tailored his evidence, it would have been bad for the DT. (This explains why they got an Anaesthetist to testify instead.)

In short, the assessment results will have to be broadly similar otherwise the Assessors professional competency will be compromised.

and the assessors produce a report they are all in agreement with. afaik.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

The experts call the shots, not the other way around, imo. And they make a pretty penny doing it. Imo, an experienced testifying psych is not going to purposefully do anything whatsoever to undermine the case of the person who retained her-e.g. be retained grudgingly or attempt to purposefully avoid Roux in court. She'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

jmo

She didn't realize she would be undermining the case by being 'honest'. Her suggestions that 'observation' and a 2nd opinion might be a good idea were honest ones.

Notice how here entire 'tone' changed from day 1 to day 2. No mention of all the 'honest' opinions she shared so freely on Day 1. The backtracking was sensational. Why backtrack if one feels strongly about certain issues?

Simple: because the DT grabbed her like a stray after proceedings, and explained how dangerous her honest opinions stated from the stand in fact were.

Day 2 - backpedaling.

Experts don't call the shots IMHO - the money they are being paid does.....

(In all honesty though, Dr Vorster is respected in her field, which is why I believe her Day 1 evidence a little more than her Day 2 version)

 

[sleuth-d-]

Somebody yesterday in thread 39 hinted at OP's facial expressions the moment Judge Masipa was explaining what the State had put forward as the reason for the DT to call Dr.V as witness , explaining the State believed it was a move to cover for OP bad testimony during cross-exam. The poster (sorry I can't find it in that thread at the moment) thought that the look on OP's face was anger (or alluded as such i can't recall the exact wording used by the poster) towards the Judge.
What I do see there ( it is my opinion not fact as i have studied micro-expressions as a personal interest the last 4 years) is a look of questioning with a raised left eyebrow and not much else.
It is important to say that the only video i found is on YT and it's the live feed , the image quality isn't great , OP is a bit too far to analyze accurately and mostly only one side of his face is in view (the latter is the most important as the only activity noted is on the left side of his face and that's hidden from the camera angle)

I'll go a bit further (and this is purely my interpretation and there are other angles , i just think this fits best with a lot of other things noted about his personality) and say that the questioning look on his face indicatd by the left eyebrow movement could be seen as OP possible narcissistic traits reacting to somebody's doubts about the integrity of his testimony. In essence how could someone think of me as bad?

Please go easy on me , i just offered what i thought and i welcome others' ideas about it !

being able to look at micro-expressions here, could give you some very interesting insights. imo. i hope you share more.

 

[DebinGA]

Nel asked OP if he'd participated in a scream test, and he answered, "Yes, m'lady". Nel dropped the subject immediately. Roux didn't enter the test in evidence, which indicates how it came out. Roux may have urged OP to have a psych evaluation, explained how various results could help him, but I doubt OP agreed to participate since he would never allow any findings showing he was deficient in any way to be publicly aired. I doubt he's even accepted the fact that his racing days are over and the parade's passed him by. He still thinks he has a brand he needs to protect.