Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Val1]

I don't see what point you're making here unless it's to toe the line of weak arguments of Gerrie Nel. He blamed himself for many things. The notion that he did otherwise is simply false.

I think the problem I'm having with that notion is that although OP may be, at least verbally, blaming himself for things, he is not accepting that blame.

There is a difference, you can usually tell it by the "but" or "if only" that follows. Right now all I see is OP playing the victim and trying to avoid any penalty for what he has done.

 

[Inge Jones]

Right now all I see is OP playing the victim and trying to avoid any penalty for what he has done.

Though wouldn't most of us try to avoid 35yrs in jail, no matter how guilty we knew ourselves to be? I would anyway lol.

 

[Trooper]

He believed he was not guilty. He was extensively interviewed about this. But again, I'm not talking about his morals but his skill as a cross examiner.

But come to that, his morals are not in question either. He takes some cases without payment, is a church goer and is highly respected.

well that's just your opinion.. it has the same value as anyone else's.. no more, no less.

Anyone on this forum can throw out the name of their fave defence, or prosecuting attorney.. its all subjective..


right now, my fave is Gerie Nel, because he is prosectuting a man I believe is guilty of an horrific murder. And doing a darn good job..

Others think differently , that's why its called a forum.

 

[Val1]

That sounds like he was saying she was in the toilet ignoring him instead of coming out and speaking to him which is why he had to fire his gun. Maybe it's just me though

That's exactly how it sounded to me too.

 

[Trooper]

Well of course that is just a point of view, but I noticed an article, for example, posted on a South African website in which the writer said he had switched sides from believing OP was guilty to realising he was telling the truth following Nel's "embarassingly bad" cross examination on Friday.

I've read 11 articles in the last half hour that cannot comprehend how Oscar thinks he can get away with it... from South African, French, Spanish, English, German , Australian, New Zealand, Kenya, Holland, Italy and of all places, Sweden.

All mentioned Oscars 'embarrassingly bad ' performance in court..

 

[James50]

To an extent I agree with you here, but I think it depends on the defendant's own life experience particularly in conflict situations. We've seen how OP's family, and psychologist respond to him with hugs and stroking when he's upset. His sister, in the gallery can be seen shaking her head in dismay if OP is becoming upset during the cross. We know how he has slid out of owning his own actions with the additional charges. This IMO is a man who expects to be deferred to in conflict or challenging situations.

EXACTLY!!!!!!! You know I didn't even know that but I'd surmised it. And the point is, because he expects that, it doesn't make him guilty. This is what people seem to be unable to separate in their minds.

Why do people stroke him and hug him etc.? It's because he was raised that way. His disability has evoked so much compassion for him from others that he is hard wired to expect it, but isn't "bad" because he does that. It isn't his fault, which is why people who know him show him such affection. They understand him.

Even so, he probably was given a choice and told of all the consequence of failing to be a good witness and refused to run away from the responsibility. The very fact that he's in the witness box and allowed himself to be cross examined for so many days on end without his helpers shows that he's taken responsibility for his actions. Action speak louder than words. And it is uncharitable (and really quite foolish) for Nel to have suggested otherwise.

OP is out of his comfort zone with Nel. I think this is a new experience for him and that he is struggling to find a way through. For these reasons I think Nel's strategy is effective in this particular case by denying OP any place to hide. OP's modus operandi is broken and the true person is being exposed.

Yes, but what I fear Pat, is that he will be found guilty not because he really is but because Nel out maneuvered him and only seemed to make him look guilty. This prosecutor doesn't look as though he has any compunction about that. He's on world TV and gaining the approval of his peers worldwide. This is his moment of glory and looks like he's lapping it up, as he laughs with the media etc. He wants to win more than he would want to spare what could well be an innocent man. That's why I say that in reality Nel is a deceptively poor lawyer while he is very good at playing the part of a good one.

 

[molly333]

Next witness, a man--Mr. Johnson [husband of Mrs. Johnson]

Lives in Silverstream. IT project manager. English--hooray!

Woke up by screams of a lady. Jumped out of bed when he heard the lady scream again and ran to the balcony on the first floor. Again heard a lady screaming. Could hear she was in trouble. Clearly distress calls. Heard a lady scream "help." Then heard a man shout "help help help". Phoned security at Silverstream. Told them people are being attacked in their house in Silverwoods. Found out he had called the wrong number. Ran back to the balcony. Woman was screaming again. At that point, intensity and fear in her voice escalated and it was clear this person's life was in danger. This is when the shots were fired. Heard lady scream again [during shots]. Quite a few shots but didn't count them. A small pause after the first shot, remaining shots fired in close succession.
Last scream from lady shortly after the last shot. Thought her husband was shot in front of her because they heard lady screaming before and during shots. Thought their house was invaded. Tried to sleep. Concerned for their own security. Around 4am got out of bed. Tried to sleep again, but got up at 5am.

This is the second person I have heard say a pause after the first shot and remaining shots in rapid succession.

 

[james83]

Sorry if already posted,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-horror-smirking-Bladerunner-face-court.html

 

[molly333]

I just lost a post. Mr. Johnson was surprised the next day when he heard Oscar had shot his girlfriend because he had thought it was a home invasion since he heard both male and female call for help. He said his house was about 150 meters away.

 

[molly333]

So far, these witnesses seem pretty good to me. They are so far all saying the same thing. One hears argument leading up to the shots. All agree on the shots, the lady screaming in fear for her life, and also hear the man.

They all try to call security because they are so concerned by what they have heard.

Two out of three hear 4 shots, one doesn't count. At least two counted a pause after the first shot. Woman screaming in fear for her life. All agree on 3am for the time of the shots. Two of the witnesses are husband and wife.

PS I'm not listening to cross examination.

 

[salberg7]

And Oscar is a terrible witness. Terrible. He conveniently forgets a lot when it suits him, but can easily point the finger at what he perceives as a "set up" blaming the police, photographers, anyone but himself. Why is he a terrible witness? Because he is lying. You don't get tripped up so many times when you are telling the truth. How can he deny he shot the gun off in the restaurant? For goodness sake, there were other people there that contradict him. My best quote so far was "I wish, m'lady, that Reeva had told me she was there" referring to being behind the door in the toilet (paraphrasing here, not a direct quote). Hello? Who doesn't check to see where your loved one is before you start shooting? I can understand fear, but Oscar had an alarm system, there hadn't been any break ins for over 2 yrs in that development, it was a gated community, & he could have retrieved Reeva & gotten the heck out of there & called security at the same time. Why go towards the danger? The more he talks, the bigger hole he digs for himself due to his inconsistencies. I think Nel is doing a great job. OP's arrogance will sink him. Another point, why was Reeva dressed in her shorts & top? I think they were fighting, she was dressed to leave, & locked herself in his bathroom because she was scared of Oscar. I think he killed her in a crime of passion. Emotionally he is childlike. I don't think he has developed coping skills. Look at his reaction when he lost to the Brazilian at the Olympics. He was a sore loser. Instead of immediately congratulating the winner, he whined that the other runner's blades gave him an advantage over Oscar, when in fact the Olympic committee stated the winner's prosthetics had been measured & were within standards.

 

[weeeva]

He is having a fair trial .. the judge and her assessors won't be taking a blind bit of notice of what is happening outside of the courtroom whether it be the news channels, the press, twitter, internet forums, etc .. they're not interested in all that and are totally focussed on the evidence and testimonies being presented to them .. so don't worry, nothing that is said here will have any influence on them whatsoever!

Yes I know that. Thanks.

 

[james83]

Thirty-one seconds. That’s how long Oscar Pistorius was silent when asked by Prosecutor Gerrie Nel if he heard Reeva Steenkamp scream after he fired the first of four shots that killed her.

Late on the third day of what has been a *sustained and brutal cross-examination, Nel said: “Are you sure, Mr Pistorius, that Reeva didn’t scream after you fired the first shot?”

Oscar slumped back in his chair and kept quiet for 31 seconds. Court GD in Pretoria was *utterly silent.

On the audio recording, all that can be heard is Nel again asking “Are you sure?” after five seconds of silence had passed.

Eleven seconds later, a man can be heard taking a deep breath and slowly exhaling.

Surprisingly, it is Nel who breaks the silence to come to Pistorius’ rescue, saying: “My Lady, I’m *giving the witness time to console himself, he is distressed”.

“I wouldn’t have done that,” said an *experienced former prosecutor.

“I would have kept quiet and counted and then when he finally said something, I would have said: ‘That took you four and a half minutes. What were you thinking about?’’’

I thought that was the *moment he was going to crack, the former prosecutor added.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/osc...ce=cheapsms247.com&utm_medium=cheapsms247.com

 

[patCee]

Even so, he probably was given a choice and told of all the consequence of failing to be a good witness and refused to run away from the responsibility. The very fact that he's in the witness box and allowed himself to be cross examined for so many days on end without his helpers shows that he's taken responsibility for his actions. Action speak louder than words. And it is uncharitable (and really quite foolish) for Nel to have suggested otherwise.

I don't think he had any choice but to take the stand. As he says himself "I am trying to save my life" It was his only real chance to mitigate his actions.

Yes, but what I fear Pat, is that he will be found guilty not because he really is but because Nel out maneuvered him and only seemed to make him look guilty. This prosecutor doesn't look as thpugh he has any compunction about. He is on world TV and gaining the approval of his peers worldwide. He wants to win more than he would want to spare what could well be an innocent man. That's why I say that in reality Nel is a deceptively poor lawyer while he is very good at playing the part.

He has been given the opportunity to speak at length about his actions and what happened, so far, that night. He has used this to 'duck and dive' (as we say in the UK). He has been shown to be evasive.

Whilst Nel's style might seem harsh, OP is only being asked questions about the evidence about what happened that night in his home, in a relatively short period of time and his subsequent actions. He was there. He can't be out maneuvered about the truth. Concrete truth is what it is and is simple to explain unless it needs to be altered to portray innocence. Feelings I have to say are less concrete without deeper self awareness.
[/QUOTE]

 

[James50]

PS I'm not listening to cross examination.

Then I urge you to listen to it, because you've already missed evidence about there being at least 2 or 3 witnessed who didn't hear any woman scream.

 

[Val1]

Though wouldn't most of us try to avoid 35yrs in jail, no matter how guilty we knew ourselves to be? I would anyway lol.

I guess it depends on how truly remorseful you were for what you'd done.

The irony is that if OP had plead guilty to all the weapon/ammo stuff immediately, I don't think any of that "bad" character stuff would have come into play for the murder charge and then with truthful answers, if indeed it was a crime of either mistaken identity or blind rage, own up to it and throw himself on the court's mercy, pleading extenuating circumstances due to his paranoia and disability. He'd probably get off with literally a slap on the wrist, have his weapon's licenses revoked and maybe have to wear a wrist bracelet(can't wear an ankle one...) and stay out of trouble for a few years. Compare that to up to 35 yrs hard time... you'd think the remorseful/honest approach would have been more enticing...imho.

 

[Trooper]

Then I urge you to listen to it, because you've already missed evidence about there being at least 2 or 3 witnessed who didn't hear any woman scream.

that is incorrect..there has not been any witness, who's location is applicable who have not firmly testified to hearing a womans scream..

I don't know if you are listening to the correct trial.

 

[James50]

d: ‘That took you four and a half minutes. What were you thinking about?’’’

I thought that was the *moment he was going to crack, the former prosecutor added.

Or maybe it was the moment when he was sick and fed up being repeatedly asked questions he'd already answered.

 

[Trooper]

Then I urge you to listen to it, because you've already missed evidence about there being at least 2 or 3 witnessed who didn't hear any woman scream.

EVERY witness so far testifying from that neighborhood has without exception stated they heard a woman screaming. one testified to hearing a woman arguing . the rest, screaming.


[modsnip]

 

[Trooper]

there has only been one claim to hearing no screaming, and that is the accused.. Oscar Pistorius..