Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Deleted member 102539]

One minor correction mein Freund[in].
it was not Oscar who screamed 'Yesss!" upon getting bail at the BH.
It was someone in the gallery.

I could swear, I've seen it myself!!!!?
But thankfully I'm not in court to testify under oath ... :smile:

(Answer from Freundin)

 

[wb180]

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.

That's why Nel lets him answer but he will keep asking him very detailed questions all over the timeline coz OP is lying.

 

[Trooper]

Tom Meserau is an excellent attorney during cross examination. He wins through the force of his arguments, not by resort to repetitive questioning and mere statements. That's what I call a brilliant attorney.

well Tom isn't prosecuting this case, in fact, Tom isn't a prosecutor at all , is he..? and Tom isn't a South African barrister ,is he?.. and Tom is hardly likely to rock up in this trial as a surprise witness, is he??

so its a bit oranges and apples...

 

[James50]

oh Oscar is soaked in remorse.. remorse isn't his problem at all.

That's my whole point. He has remorse and so he isn't at ease. He is remorseful because he fired the gun in error, while believing he was shooting at an intruder who was about to emerge from the bathroom.

 

[Val1]

Playing devils advocate here, but what if someone moved a fan to the doorway so that they could cool down the room, an evidence gatherer gets just as hot as anyone else.

I am not saying this happened but if I was OP's attorney I would surely suggest it as a possibility.

Just like OP moved his business cell phone into the bath room, supposedly moved RS's cell phone from the toilet room to the bath room, and then had his private cell phone squirreled away from the crime scene via friends, family or defense team. Oh and then all that gathering of towels, garbage bags, rope/tape etc and RS's purse which required OP and Ms.Stander to scurry up and down the stairs all through the crime scene multiple times. Then OP's sister to collect clothes/watch/es and brother/lawyer/locksmith to open and collect items from OP's safes, that's just off the top of my head iirc.

Yea, lots of contaminating going on... what's the penalty in SA for deliberating interfering in a criminal investigation anyway?

 

[James50]

well Tom isn't prosecuting this case, in fact, Tom isn't a prosecutor at all , is he..? and Tom isn't a South African barrister ,is he?.. and Tom is hardly likely to rock up in this trial as a surprise witness, is he??

so its a bit oranges and apples...

I'm not talking about what he is. I'm talking about his approach to cross examination. I don't think it matters what he is, but how he extracts admissions etc. He doesn't cajole but he still gets them out of the witnesses he cross examines.

 

[Trooper]

That's my whole point. He has remorse and so he isn't at ease. He is remorseful because he fired the gun in error, while believing he was shooting at an intruder who was about to emerge from the bathroom.

the Govt of the Republic of South Africa state the opposite, James..

it is their contention that Oscar fired deliberately and knowingly. 4 times.

you don't know what Oscar is remorseful for.. he could be remorseful for a whole bucket of different things..

 

[wb180]

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.

Well I guess Nel's method is working then as OP isn't thinking themselves better out of tricky situations. In fact for OP it is going downhill, maybe coz his brain needs to think about all the versions and all the other witness testimonies and also think how his answer affects Nels next question.

 

[shane13]

I could swear, I've seen it myself!!!!?
But thankfully I'm not in court to testify under oath ... :smile:

(Answer from Freundin)

Danke meine Freundin.

Easy to search for this one, but I remembered it clearly. It actually took a while for MSM to get the right person who did scream YESSS! But it was immediately clear it was from the gallery. Pistorius family knew better--for public relations--than to act like that.

See here; http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...orius-granted-bail-ahead-of-murder-trial?lite

"...There was a cry of "yes" from the public gallery after his decision, and his relatives embraced, cried and prayed..." [From near the top]

Gute Morgen!

 

[Trooper]

I'm not talking about what he is. I'm talking about his approach to cross examination. I don't think it matters what he is, but how he extracts admissions etc. He doesn't cajole but he still gets them out of the witnesses he cross examines.

but what has this Tom person got to do with this trial?? is this Tom person known world wide?? is he famous for something?? I don't understand why his alleged attributes are of such importance??

 

[fox1lady]

"If Reeva had come out or spoken to me, I wouldn't have fired."

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

 

[Trooper]

I'm not talking about what he is. I'm talking about his approach to cross examination. I don't think it matters what he is, but how he extracts admissions etc. He doesn't cajole but he still gets them out of the witnesses he cross examines.

are you suggesting that this mysterious Tom should enter the fray, and , not being a prosecuting attorney himself, but even so, should take Nels place and question Oscar in a manner more to your liking??

 

[wb180]

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

Maybe another slip of tongue?

 

[patCee]

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.

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.

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.

 

[shane13]

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.

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 if people only read his autobio, Blade Runner--most of which details that he has never felt disabled, this was mostly due to his mom's way of bringing him up.

So the more you know about him...

 

[James50]

Well I guess Nel's method is working then as OP isn't thinking themselves better out of tricky situations. In fact for OP it is going downhill, maybe coz his brain needs to think about all the versions and all the other witness testimonies and also think how his answer affects Nels next question.

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.

 

[molly333]

Next witness--Estelle? Lives in Silverwoods. Wakes up at 2am. Heard sounds. People talking in loud voices. [sounded like] A fight. Lasted about an hour. Couldn't hear what people were saying. Couldn't understand the language. She was irritated, keeping her awake. Put a pillow on her head. Looked out at some point, couldn't see anything. About 3am she heard 4 gunshots. sounded like gunshots. Bang. Bang. After the four sounds, total silence. Husband woke up. Looked out window. Couldn't see anything. Went back to bed. Then heard a commotion. Husband called security. Next heard somebody was crying out loud. Husband said it was Oscar. Seemed like a woman's voice to her.

Later finds out from security that Oscar shot his friend.


I need a translator for the translator.

Now it sounds like she only heard one voice in the fight?

 

[Inge Jones]

Sorry I am very late to this thread. Was watching the trial so hard I forgot to read the forums

Anyway I just wanted to say that I was hard pressed to find any decisive evidence one way or the other until OP himself took the stand. Then, even during his *defence* direct, it became rather obvious to me that he was an appalling and habitual liar, as well as impulsive, aggressive, and arrogant. Since the prosecution cross has begun he seems pretty well sunk.

Even the Steenkamp family agree with me having heard him speak: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-horror-smirking-Bladerunner-face-court.html

 

[James50]

The Tom Mesereau who defended Michael Jackson? I have no respect for him. Someone who would defend a guilty child molester.

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.

 

[shane13]

The Tom Mesereau who defended Michael Jackson? I have no respect for him. Someone who would defend a guilty child molester.

WOW. Thanks for telling us that.
Everyone deserves a fair trial. But also saw at Wiki now that he defended Mike Tyson and Robert Blake.