Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Interested Bystander]

But his nearest neighbors only heard a man screaming and they believed it was Oscar. They heard no woman. Some of the “screaming woman” neighbors only came forward after the case against Oscar was made in the media.

Hmmm………..


The problem for the state is that with a bench trial they must only argue the law as the judge will not be swayed by emotion and questionable "ear witnesses" as a jury would.

But the immediate neighbours didn't hear the shots (other than perhaps one of them heard one shot) so they have to have woken up after Reeva had been killed. One really cannot expect to hear screams from a dead woman.

 

[CriLondon]

If you have time his autobiography is a fascinating and quick read, especially in light of the events of his life after it was written. The subconscious is a fascinating place. Oscar talks about how the Paralympics were different from other sporting events because there was a comradery off the field that was not present when he competed with able-bodied athletes, yet he still insists that he is not disabled because he was raised as if he was not disabled.

Very interesting.

I think it is healthy to push yourself, healthy to not be limited by a disability but our bodies cannot perform beyond their structure and I think that this dichotomy was (and is) at war in Oscar psyche.


Is there a school of thought about micro mannerisms and the subconscious?

What i find interesting is that it seems to fit with some personality traits that he has exhibited in the past and during this trial.
I think the "fight" to compete at London 2012 highlights this "war in OP psyche" you mentioned.
It fits with the fact that he was always shown to think like that , that the mind controls the body not viceversa.
It could be said that focusing on denial rather than acceptance (and the implications and ramifications denial of oneself limitations can carry going forward in life) of your limitations has proved detrimental to OP in other areas of OP persona. But i'm not such an expert to talk about that so you know...

Facial Micro/Macro/Mini/partial expressions are generated only at sub-conscious level , for they manifest themselves through no deliberate or voluntary thought process.

There are many books on the subject , which i have read many of , i've trained myself in seeing all this...as personal pleasure and interest , always promising myself to use it with utmost discretion as it can be very unhealthy

 

[lithgow1]

This is interesting re special treatment for OP:

why OP has to be an in patient - YouTube

 

[james83]

RBBM

And to your first point, before it turns into a semantics game, Roux himself qualified that there is a difference when crossing one of the State's witnesses. I'm sorry, I don't remember which one, only that he used the argument it wasn't screaming himself to, seemingly, cast doubt on the witness' testimony at the time.

JMO

Exactly, part of the defence's case was Oscar's screams like a woman when he is stressed.
There is a very clear and undisputable pattern of events that night.
First set of sounds-screaming-second set of sounds-crying.

 

[Emz73]

What would a reasonable person do is not used to determine intent as to deliberate murder. If intent can't be proved then the question is, even if he didn't intend to kill anyone should he reasonably have known his actions could lead to death?

BBL

We were talking about OPs defence of putative self defence and what a SA law professor said about it.

 

[Karmady]

No worries, I am not OP

So the defense is, I thought it was an intruder but I was mistaken because I am paranoid and vulnerable but it's not diminished capacity but kinda is. Yep clear as mud

Roux was arguing his physical/mental condition for dimished capacity in mitigation only. Diminished capacity is not a defense under SA law. Now the mental health referral has put the defendant's condition potentially into the realm of a defense of pathological incapacity. Which is why the court said it was strange that the defense opposed it imo

Also, based on Vorster's testimony, the incapacity wouldn't only have to do with the mistake, but also with the response to a perceived intruder -- fight rather than flight.

jmo

 

[DebinGA]

I also don't see where he yelled "read the law." The accounts I'm finding say he "said" it. Not a big deal, but since your post was about a history of supposed uncontrolled outbursts....

jmo

Reportedly, he yelled it in response to a reporter's question as he left court. I think his yelling anything shows his lack of self-control, even when medicated.

 

[Nausicaa]

But his nearest neighbors only heard a man screaming and they believed it was Oscar. They heard no woman. Some of the “screaming woman” neighbors only came forward after the case against Oscar was made in the media.

Hmmm………..


The problem for the state is that with a bench trial they must only argue the law as the judge will not be swayed by emotion and questionable "ear witnesses" as a jury would.

Amazing that you could even imagine such a thing! If the judge does not take full acount of witness evidence her judgement will be liable to be overturned. I'm more interested in sleuthing the event than the trial but I'm prepared to predict that both counsel will be talking a lot about the witness evidence in what we have yet to hear. And rightly so.

 

[patCee]

Thanks to Nausicaa and H4M.

I'll follow it up and read some more tomorrow.

dolus eventualis......dolus eventualis......dolus eventualis.....dolus eventualis...

dolus eventualis......:tantrum:

 

[Nausicaa]

[...]

dolus eventualis......dolus eventualis......dolus eventualis.....dolus eventualis...

dolus eventualis......:tantrum:

...and that's just the nominative singular!

 

[Karmady]

Reportedly, he yelled it in response to a reporter's question as he left court. I think his yelling anything shows his lack of self-control, even when medicated.

My point was that the articles I'm seeing said he "said" it, not "yelled" it. So it appears that two of the three examples you gave in the OP didn't happen.
In fact, the only link I see saying he "yelled" it is to WS.

Snipped from the link-bbm:

Nel said if Pistorius had genuine anxiety issues, Judge Thokozile Masipa should order him to be evaluated. Responding to a question from a reporter after the trial was adjourned, Pistorius said "Go read the law."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-pistorius-murder-trial-psychiatrist/8999469/

 

[lithgow1]

Interesting you mention anger and furious a lot in this innocent scene, why so angry at a supposed noise natural to think fear first before fury... I mean come on if any one here had a similar incident the fear would drive us away from the noise and be angry and furious at a safe distance
Too much of this story depends on Oscar to wildly put him self in the firing line when everyone knows how selfish he is

Exactly. Remember too when Nel got to the post-shooting events and OP was back in the bathroom having finally put the gun down (after going up and down the hallway shouting and screaming and doing things all the while carrying it*) Nel asked 'was it still cocked?'. OP answered 'yes' and then added that was dangerous because it could have been kicked and gone off and injured him. Bit of a pause, and then 'or hurt Reeva more'. That afterthought then sounded like it was an afterthought at the time IMO.

* Yet another 'what! you're kidding me? why do that?'

 

[CriLondon]

IIRC there was some confusion because Roux had asked for a short adj...overruled by Judge. Meanwhile Dr V had entered the court by another door. I also thought that someone said she didn't object to being televised. Then the judge asked for clarification and then said that Dr V did not wish to be televised, so she wasn't.

I thought that the slight delay and Roux calling for a short adj. was because he wasn't sure whether the witness had arrived (or at least that's how he put it to the judge in his asking).
She had , in fact , arrived but had entered the courtroom from the other side .
Some have raised the possibility that he had wished to quickly confer with her (or that his team hadn't managed to outside the courtroom) by noting how he angrily turned towards his assistant.

I can't lean on any side on that because it could be quite a few reasons why so it would be pure speculation.

Whether there was confusion i can't recall but i highly doubt it would have happened whilst she was being sworn in, or else the cameras would have picked her up taking the stand as well.
What makes sense to me is that it would be agreed upon before entering the courtroom if one wishes to be on camera or not.

JMO

 

[Cherwell]

I'm not sure but being televised or not would have been agreed before Dr.V took the stand , because the cameras pointing in that direction will have to have been "cut off" before she walked into the courtroom.
So i think it's safe to say , being televised gets agreed before taking the stand not when being sworn in.

I don't doubt that, but there has usually been a reference just before the testimony as to whether the witness wishes to be photographed or not. (Probably as clarification or reminder for the cameraman and photographers.) That is why I wondered what the question was to which Dr Vorster answered that she had no objection. As I said, I could not make out what was said.

 

[james83]

More and more people beginning to wake up and smell the coffee and realise the bat was used first.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/oscar-pistorius-i-know-what-really-happened/

 

[Viper]

Quote from the link:
"Pistorius therefore has to convince the court that his vulnerability, as a disabled person living in South Africa, genuinely led him to believe his life was in danger from an intruder hiding behind a closed toilet door. The court must further be convinced that his response – pumping four bullets through the door – was reasonable in the circumstances."

Pierre de Vos
Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at University of Cape Town

http://theconversation.com/the-pistorius-defence-and-the-fear-that-grips-white-south-africa-25559

 

[katydid23]

In the UK you don't need service or credit to make a 999 call from a mobile.

But you do need to have 'reception' or else the phone will not connect to anyone. That's what i was trying to say.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Roux was arguing his physical/mental condition for dimished capacity in mitigation only. Diminished capacity is not a defense under SA law. Now the mental health referral has put the defendant's condition potentially into the realm of a defense of pathological incapacity. Which is why the court said it was strange that the defense opposed it imo

Also, based on Vorster's testimony, the incapacity wouldn't only have to do with the mistake, but also with the response to a perceived intruder -- fight rather than flight.

jmo

They were not at the mitigation phase yet so...
The defense is either OP should not be found guilty because he responds differently to events then most which I find a ridiculous or he truly has a disorder that makes him a danger to everyone else.

 

[CriLondon]

I don't doubt that, but there has usually been a reference just before the testimony as to whether the witness wishes to be photographed or not. (Probably as clarification or reminder for the cameraman and photographers.) That is why I wondered what the question was to which Dr Vorster answered that she had no objection. As I said, I could not make out what was said.

I remember Michelle Burger , the first witness for the state , not being televised.
And IIRC Nel made a reference that she wasn't gonna be televised before she was sworn in.
Maybe somebody can clarify for us , i'll go and check when Dr.V arrived and try to answer that .

 

[DebinGA]

My point was that the articles I'm seeing said he "said" it, not "yelled" it. So it appears that two of the three examples you gave in the OP didn't happen.
In fact, the only link I see saying he "yelled" it is to WS.

I don't know how you define "said" but in the case of OP "saying," "Go read the law" and "It's a joke" in response to reporters' questions "yelled" at him as he left court, I don't imagine he used his "spoke softly" voice. The important thing to me was not what he said, but that he couldn't exercise enough self-control to say nothing. He's compelled to respond to a challenge or anyone he perceives as a foe, which could be anyone anytime.