Trial Discussion Thread #40

[lithgow1]

In fairness I say that there are other conclusions that may be drawn about the evidence.
I don;t agree that there is credible evidence that 5 people heard a woman screaming for 15 minutes that is the beginning and end of my view I know others disagree.

And I won't state it again because it has become a fruitless conversation at this point.

So with all respect what evidence will you discuss that doesn't necessitate going inside Oscar's head? How about timing? If OP's telling the truth RS lived for 10 to 15 minutes after being shot in the head. Have you any thoughts on that evidence?

 

[Carmelita]

So with all respect what evidence will you discuss that doesn't necessitate going inside Oscar's head? How about timing? If OP's telling the truth RS lived for 10 to 15 minutes after being shot in the head. Have you any thoughts on that evidence?

I've discussed a load of evidence as you know. It isn't necessary for Reeva to have lived for 10 or 15 minutes after being shot in the head if Oscar is telling the truth. I'm not going to revisit every bit of evidence that we disagree on. The fact that the whole AM and it's events is fluid is part of the problem with the forensic evidence.


I am out the door for some fun so I hope every one has a good evening

 

[Carmelita]

The poster asked do you believe OP was screaming for 15 minutes?

I responded to the implied question.

 

[lithgow1]

I've discussed a load of evidence as you know. It isn't necessary for Reeva to have lived for 10 or 15 minutes after being shot in the head if Oscar is telling the truth. I'm not going to revisit every bit of evidence that we disagree on. The fact that the whole AM and it's events is fluid is part of the problem with the forensic evidence.


I am out the door for some fun so I hope every one has a good evening

Sounds more like you're not going to revisit any bit of evidence rather than every bit. That notwithstanding have a good night.

 

[toevlugsoord]

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/

Thank you so much for this! I've had this belief for quite a while.
My question then is: WHY hasn't Nel put this forth as the state's case? There must be a reason!!!

 

[Emz73]

Maybe we can do a list of 'things that make us go hmmmm'. One for the prosecution and one for the defence and then we can compare. Here's a start for the state, I'll add more and pls feel free to add or expand:

Things that make us go hmmmmm

- OP was hypervigilent but went to sleep that night with open doors, possibly dodgy alarm, a broken window, ladders maybe lying around

- when OP awoke he could see nothing of RS despite the curtains being open and the balcony light on

- they spoke briefly, testimony that contradicts his bail application - either he was lying or he couldn't remember a few days after killing her the last words he heard from the woman he loved

- the bringing in of the fans directly contradicts his bail statement as to where they were placed - on the balcony first, in the room next. Hmmmm, why the change?

-The very moment OP shot his 4th and last bullet (not the last in the gun though), the screaming suddenly stopped. Coincidence? Hmmm.

 

[lithgow1]

-The very moment OP shot his 4th and last bullet (not the last in the gun though), the screaming suddenly stopped. Coincidence? Hmmm.

Sorry Emz73 but I just deleted that post - I decided if I couldn't finish it then I shouldn't start and there were just too many 'hmmms'. I know I said they are free, but time's not!

 

[Val1]

Thank you so much for this! I've had this belief for quite a while.
My question then is: WHY hasn't Nel put this forth as the state's case? There must be a reason!!!

I'm guessing it will be his closing argument, tying up all those loose ends so to speak.

 

[Val1]

Vorster said he was being treated for anxiety and depression SINCE the murder.. not before.

that was part of her testimony . It was made quite clear that he wasn't being treated for any such of a thing PRE the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. and since this directive, and ppks question is in reference to Oscar not seeking treatment PRE his murderous morning, whatever treatment he is receiving now , since the killing is irrelevant TO the killing.

<modsnip>

corrected by me

Just to add, three months before OP killed RS:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-admitted-anger-issues-1743483

“Off air, he said he knew he had got it all wrong. He was aware he had a temper issue and was trying to stop making that kind of mistake, as he put it."

 

[Feynman]

partial quote:

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.

They heard no woman because the woman was dead. And these close neighbors do not describe screaming, they describe crying. And IIRC they do not say they believed it was Oscar.

Let us note: The screaming "like I never screamed before" could not have been heard by any of the close neighbors, because OP has these monumental screams occurring in the vicinity of cricket bat blows. Two of the close people heard no bangs at all - hence no blows and hence no monumental screams. The other, Mrs. N, heard the last bang; same problem. (Are they all on Ambien?)

As for the not-so-close witnesses coming forward only after media reports, these witnesses said they did this because said reports were remarkably different from what they heard. Why do you find fault with this?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Can you imagine the pressures of defending an undiagnosed Narcissist?
I believe they are all saints.
OP rules like Joffrey Lannister did, before his unfortunate end.

Interesting that his room mate during the Olympics moved out of their shared room due to OP shouting at people over his phone 24/7.

I can only imagine the DT meetings. :facepalm:

His family on the other hand just seem to be plain scared of him and his reactions. His sister's entire demeanor is that of a 'fearful woman' - pardon me for saying this.
Furtive glances the entire time to make sure her brother isn't going to implode, the praying, the silent begging, the pandering to his ego during every break, the consoling. Fear. fear. fear. It's the only reason a seemingly intelligent woman would take a hand bag from a crime scene. IMHO of course.

My opinion of Aimee has been gleaned only by what has been shown of her during the trial via online free public live feeds.

From that limited viewpoint and that viewpoint only, I just don't see it. I have never sensed that she afraid of her brother. I sense that she's afraid for him - for what crazy stuff he may say or do next, and what the future holds - but not of him.

Other than looking a little tired sometimes, I think she looks like she's doing ok. She dresses nicely, she takes care of her hair, her skin tone seems clear, she sits up straight, and she's engaged in what's going on.

If she was fearful and afraid, I would expect her to be rather or slightly unkempt, careless about her hair, sallow skin tone with dark under-eye circles, sitting in a cowed position and rarely if ever looking up - especially not at him. Least of all, I would not expect her to go rushing over to him -- unless it's a Pistorius familial trait that everyone rushes toward danger.

 

[Feynman]

I'll try to explain. The article and your OP were supporting the idea that the bat came first. Presumably, the theory is that those bat strikes would have been directed at the door while she was cowering behind it. In that case, why would she scream AFTER the bat strikes but not during them. No one heard bangs and screams together like one of them heard a male and female voice together, for example. If I was cowering behind a door while my crazed lunatic boyfriend was trying to bash it down with a bat, I'd definitely be screaming!

If I was cowering ... yes, like Spock, I would do X, and then confer with the onboard computer for a second opinion.

Here's an idea: Reeva might scream only after those few bat blows because she was shocked and speechless that someone she trusted to not be a madman had suddenly turned into one - and she couldn't voice anything until she had a chance to catch her breath. There are many possibilities here (among them, some screams could have been masked by those blows, which sound a lot like gun shots according to bat basher and his team).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

A very interesting read on the history of Dolus Eventulis in SA courts:

"The Concept of Dolus Eventualis in SA Law" reference.sabinet.co.za/

Succinct summary: Both elements of DE must be proven by the State:

1. a cognitive component. That OP had foresight of the possibility of great harm {not necessarily of death}.

2. a volitional component. That OP acted with a recklessness that suggests he was indifferent whether or not death would result from his actions.


The article focuses on the cognitive component, on foresight. According to this article, since the 1940's SA courts have moved from an objective notion of foresight to a subjective notion of foresight. Hang in there! This is relevant.

Objective foresight meant that the State only had to prove that a reasonable person in the situation would have acted differently. The reason for that standard is obvious....how much easier it is to define a standard and apply it.

Subjective foresight is the standard instead, and what Nel must prove. To do that he must prove that OP had "actual" foresight that his actions could result in another's death.

That is a very difficult burden of proof. The second element of DE, recklessness, is IMO, has been proven. The first? Not yet. The psych eval and how it is handled IMO is pivotal.

OP admitted on the stand, he had the foresight not to shoot a warning shot into the shower cubicle because it might ricochet and harm himself.
IMO, Nel has proved it.
OP shot to kill, not with one bullet, but four. OP had to make sure that person in the toilet was dead.
OP has described his gun/bullets as 'zombie stoppers', he KNEW it would kill without a doubt, jmo.

 

[Feynman]

They should have informed the state's experts!

Can you remind me - which of the state's experts said all bat blows came after all gun shots?

 

[jilly]

I am not an attorney and do not live is SA, everything I post is to my best understanding, so I'm quite happy being wrong - here's a link to prove I'm wrong. Page 19 explains what the test is to prove intention via dolus eventualis, if others are curious. Thank you, Nausicaa - your post explains it much better than my link.

http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/funda/funda_v14_n2_a2.pdf

Thank you for that link. So......it's all about intention!

From your link:

....In considering the issue of intention to kill, the test is whether the
[accused] foresaw the possibility that the act in question ... would have
fatal consequences, and was reckless whether death resulted or not.....

He goes into the bathroom with a cocked gun with the intention of shooting. He shoots into the door and then there's the pause. Realizing that he's now done for, he makes another intended decision to finish her off.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Kelly Phelps :floorlaugh: Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

The feeble minded fangirl was already wailing about his innocence before the facts of the case were even known.

You have to ask yourself the question as to why 99% of the legal professionals in SA, (and I mean this......I can name them: Manny Witz, Renier Spies, James Grant, Ulrich Roux, William Booth etc etc etc) ALL feel differently to what she (the lecturer in law) does.

:floorlaugh:

My fave defense advocate, Renier Spier was asked during OP's testimony WHAT he would be doing if Oscar were his client. He stated that he would be saying, "Oh my ***, Oh my ***, Oh my ***". The rest concurred.

Kelly of course thought he was fabulous......... :facepalm:

I have a little something written by Prof M Simpson re: OP's 'fans'; the Pistorians (of which I am now certain KP is one.....) In fact, if you want a balanced view on what most of SA is thinking - read his columns. I will post a few of the funnier ones :scared::scared:

"There seems to be little evidence of any intelligence. They&#8217;re like Flat-Earthers or those who believe in alien abductions. The belief is primary, and not the result of reason or logic. They begin with an attractive belief, and then try to turn it into reality.

These kind of people are often drab; they lead drab little lives and like to seize on a belief or cause to provide them with a central organizing point and some semblance of excitement. They may have superficially full and busy lives, but still crave the thrill of a special "cause". "

:floorlaugh:

All TV, being merely a mechanism through which gather advertising dollars, is about viewer numbers. If everyone agrees, that's pretty boring. There's not much to draw you in or bring you back for more.

Excitement, controversy, and tension, (and confusion?) on the other hand, are often addicting. Is it possible that this woman is getting paid to play a role - devil's advocate, contrarian, provocateur? In the states, Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, among many others, have brilliant successful careers by doing just that.

I find the whole thing fascinating. It's intentional, a joke to them, and they're laughing all the way to the bank. Often negative and destructive, they seem to thrive on it. My moral compass doesn't swing in that direction. Perhaps I'm the fool.

In any event, I've wondered the same thing about an esteemed fellow-commenter on this site, someone whose posts never cease to puzzle and amaze me. While I don't know anything about either of these individuals, my I gut reactions are these:

1) They're both very convincing, in the sense that they really seem to believe what they're saying.

2) Either they're living in a parallel universe or I am.

 

[CriLondon]

I understand the concept that micro/macro/mini expressions (well sincere ones as emotions can be faked) are generated at the subconscious level. My question is a little more complicated, if a person has a subconscious memory, will their mannerism reflect it or will the subconscious mannerism come from the easily retrievable memory portion of the brain?

One can fake emotions , but the timing and length of them is what makes an emotion true or "pushed".
One needs an unbelievable understanding of emotions, where they generate from and what muscles are involved in each of them to be able to withstand long/gruelling questioning under intense pressure(as OP during cross-exam).

The above does not apply for psychopaths for they share different emotional triggers...those don't fake emotions, they just experience inappropriate ones for a given situation.

In answer to your last question...yes it is a bit complicated and i won't pretend to know a scientific answer to that.
I will try and answer it with an example:
Let's say , for argument's sake, that OP in his subconcious memory feels "a lesser man" for being a double-amputee. Let's say that OP has always been shown one way of facing it and he's been shaped to believe to be just like anyone else.
Under intense , perhaps even ferocious questioning (that's when mental defenses tend to give way) his face would leak that true emotion at one point or another.
Assuming the conditions of the argument are both true then he would , under the right questioning , leak that emotion.

Hope it partially answers your question

 

[ColonelMustard]

I was just finishing the last thread and read your lovely post. I typed out a response which took an hour and could not post it due to the thread being closed.

My 20 year old brother was murdered in 1982 in an attempted robbery. He was a rising junior at Duke, 2 weeks away from going back when he was killed. He was shot point blank in the head and died in the ER where I was working (RN) that night. He came in as a John Doe as the police had his wallet. I could not save him.....

The entire event is a video loop in my head. I remember every single detail. Every single sound, smell, the sounds of my screaming, my helplessness despite my education and training. The 2 men who killed my brother were caught; two murder trials later, sentenced to LWOP.

I was 25 and his death has never left me. His death splintered my family. My mother was never the same. As my life went on, I got married and had children and they have had to endure the hypervigilance and my constant tisk and safety assessments.

I have spent 32 years trying to honor my brother, quietly, through the highest levels of the US Government and through working as an RN in the ER, trying to help and save others from a similar pain as mine. No one should ever have to walk in my shoes. The rage and the grief sits quietly deep below the surface. No one would ever know unless I told them.

Thank you for your kindness and that of others. I am constantly reminded of the caring and goodness in people through these forums. We all seek justice in our own way, for those who can no longer speak for themselves. God Bless.

To June Steenkamp, to you, and to everyone out here with whom this may resonate...

Grief is the price we pay for loving. Beyond that, there are simply. no. words.


I leave you with the thoughts of Howard Thurman...

I share with you the agony of your grief,
The anguish of your heart finds echo in my own.
I know I cannot enter all you feel
Nor bear with you the burden of your pain.

I can but offer what my love does give:
The strength of caring,
The warmth of one who seeks to understand
The silent storm-swept barrenness of so great a loss.​

This I do in quiet ways,
That on your lonely path
You may not walk alone.​

 

[ColonelMustard]

A shout-out to all the lurkers and lurkettes...

Jump in, the water's GREAT here!! It's a very welcoming crowd and everyone's opinion has value.

I read this site because it's really interesting, people can be really humorous, and I learn a lot. I comment here because I'm working on my writing. I'd like to be more articulate and practice makes perfect.

When I feel strong emotion about something - which is usually everything - I seize right up. My mind is gripped by a paralysis of rational thought that defines human imagination. When speaking I blather on, when writing... well, I don't write; I can't. I'm too revved up to keep my fingers on the keys. I just grip the bottom of my chair with white knuckles waiting until the steam coming out of my ears subsides.

That's why I practice. )

My point is this. It doesn't matter why you comment, just jump in ---- or in and out, and in again. The more voices there are the better the conversations.

And hey, if you're nervous about sharing your opinion, just type IMHO (in my humble opinion) at the beginning of your post.

If you're really nervous, type IMHO at the beginning of every sentence. Ha!

It can work!! )

 

[Zim]

....that is a long, stressful day.

Tell me your having a laugh?
You are aren't you?

:giggle::giggle::giggle: