Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
jassy writer
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
James, if you read my long post further up the page, the writer (a defense attorney) points out some of the inconsistencies which Nel has highlighted.
The interplay between the Judge and OP—when he was tired
On the surface it might look merely like a matter of sympathy.
In all likelihood, both Nel (who backs off when Oscar gets stressed for the same reason) and the Judge want to obviate the “tired, stressed, disabled man” excuse for Appeals. So the judge actually asked him something like, ”Are you tired, Mr Pistorius which is causing you to make mistakes? Do you wish to stop now because you are tired?”
And then OP—because he has been told that this can be grounds for Appeal—does not really answer. He merely states that he wants to go on.
Then it goes to the next logical level, and the Judge now knows that OP has likely been told this could be grounds for Appeal—“the badgered, tired, disabled man”— and she is more determined to call for a break to again obviate a basis for [successful] Appeals.
Above JMOOC
On the surface it might look merely like a matter of sympathy.
In all likelihood, both Nel (who backs off when Oscar gets stressed for the same reason) and the Judge want to obviate the “tired, stressed, disabled man” excuse for Appeals. So the judge actually asked him something like, ”Are you tired, Mr Pistorius which is causing you to make mistakes? Do you wish to stop now because you are tired?”
And then OP—because he has been told that this can be grounds for Appeal—does not really answer. He merely states that he wants to go on.
Then it goes to the next logical level, and the Judge now knows that OP has likely been told this could be grounds for Appeal—“the badgered, tired, disabled man”— and she is more determined to call for a break to again obviate a basis for [successful] Appeals.
Above JMOOC
Well, yes, I understand why he does it, but I don't think it achieves the end people think it does. Someone is most likely to let something slip when they are relaxed and at ease. When they're primed, they'll be much more careful and circumspect and if they do make mistakes those mistakes will mostly just be mistakes due to poor thinking rather than admissions of anything.
Like when you keep barking at someone who's driving, sooner or later they will drive badly and risk having an accident. This doesn't prove that they are bad drivers, just that your behaviour oppressed them to the point that it intefered with their ability to drive (read answer correctly) and they could no longer effectively drive.
It's the same tactic used to extract false confessions, so go figure.
no one was barking at Oscar when he made his bail statement and his trial statement, yet that has , obviously , resulted in false statements..
I don't follow your logic, on that basis..
Patagonia
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
Great points in that post!
I agree that Oscar isn't doing well on the stand at all, and there is probably even worse to come.
But, imo, the State still hasn't proved premeditated murder beyond reasonable doubt.
At this point, I somehow see the judge giving him culpable homicide, but with a harsh sentence (definitely not suspended sentence, even though CH charge allows it)
But we'll see, there is still a lot ahead of us.
Although we may never know for sure what really happened that night
I do, in fact, bark at people who drive badly. this always results in them lifting their game and driving in a sane manner..
Oscar is testifying.. and testifying badly.. if he didn't expect barks, he shouldn't have taken the stand and his attorney should have prepared him more thoroughly..
Having said that, I believe his attorney has done the very best preparation he could , considering the pile of nonsense he has had to deal with.
Oscar is testifying.. and testifying badly.. if he didn't expect barks, he shouldn't have taken the stand and his attorney should have prepared him more thoroughly..
Having said that, I believe his attorney has done the very best preparation he could , considering the pile of nonsense he has had to deal with.
That's almost laughable that Van Staden's saying he concentrated on evidence that could be moved -- as if none of it was moved before he photographed it
We'll never know for sure how much of it was done by OP and his friends and family either.
Did anyone figure out just who all had arrived prior to when the first police officer arrived and tried to contain the area(not withstanding the self described "family friend" police officer and his associates who also appeared)?
You were right. I skipped over it, but "I'll get to it" ;-) as soon as I have time.
There are things about that night that Oscar will take to his grave.. no one will ever know the whole story. ... it is the way of murder.. the murderer owns those hours between his victim and himself... because one is dead, the other one can weave any damn story they want to.
You're discounting OP's whole persona, that of an olympic athlete who performs his best when under pressure... ie. he's the bullet in the chamber
It's been when he's not being pushed to become confrontational that he is reduced to a blubbering mess.
Well of course everyone reacts differently as I know people who do the opposite, and actually here you're proving my point. Because if barking at people makes them better able to think, then they are going to think themselves better out of tricky situations. Exactly what you don't want.
With that I agree, but not because he's guilty but because the methods of the prosecutor is making him answer poorly.
Do we actually have proof that he spoke during that call or was it the same as the one he made to security? Have there been any recordings of the Netcare call? I know that here in the UK and in the US I guess, there are usually recordings played after these such tragedies.
Exactly, but someone who's guilty but has no remorse will have that aberration.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,976
- Reaction score
- 25,362
He sounds alot like Juan Martinez, who prosecuted Jodi Arias and won her conviction. People called him an over-the-top bulldog, but his style is effective!
I've enjoyed both Roux and Nel... both competent and astute Barristers, both faced with a very difficult case.. both wanting entirely different outcomes.. one has a murdering fool for a client and the other has a murdering fool as a perpetrator.
- Status