Trial Discussion Thread #20 - 14.04.08, Day 18

[TorisMom003]

So do I. And his story hasn't changed. From day one. That is key.

Really? Was todays testimony missed? The posts transcribing what was said in court today missed?

There were no changes at all in his story today from the bail application statement?

 

[MeeBee]

So not many hearts or minds have been changed by Oscar's testimony. I suspect that those who already found him guilty would be smearing him no matter how he came across on the stand.

If he was robotic and unemotional he would be said to be uncaring and uninterested. He shows a great deal of emotion and it's labeled a self serving act. There's no way for him to be seen as anything other than GUILTY by those who have pre-judged him so - irrespective of the facts and evidence. IMO

I thought his testimony gave more insight into his thinking that night and the sorrow he feels about his actions. One thing that came across clearly in his testimony is that it was fear that motivated him to shoot and not bravado.

All his crying and emotion will not alter the facts or move him from guilty to not guilty - I can't imagine it will have any impact on the verdict other than it gives the judge something by which to judge his credibility. If she believes he is genuine, she will unlikely convict him of premeditated murder .. He is not behaving like a man who intended to kill his girlfriend. But I think the state failed to present a convincing case for premeditated murder anyway.

His remorse and strong emotion will certainly play a role in sentencing if he is found guilty of culpable homicide.

When a person is trying to make something sound genuine when it's not, it shows. As normal human beings we can tell when someone is being sincere. When a person who is not recalling a real event is describing fear, the tone and inflection of their voice will not match the words they are saying. They use catchphrases like, "mortal terror" and, "in fear of my life." OP recounting the events from that night really affected me because it sounded so real. It was if he was reliving the moment he thought an intruder had come into his home. There was genuine terror in his voice. And the horror he felt when he realized it could have been Reeva. "I didn't want it to be true." Also, a very visceral and real thing to say, IMO.

:moo:

 

[MeeBee]

Really? Was todays testimony missed? The posts transcribing what was said in court today missed?

There were no changes at all in his story today from the bail application statement?

Nope.

 

[Fuskier]

"His 'breakdowns' have been timed to perfection.
This is why I cannot believe so many people are falling for it.
His whole defence depends on showing regret and remorse at what was a mistaken identity / self-defence killing. For him to stand any chance of a reduced sentence the requirement from him for the DT is for him to be over whelmed with grief and to stick to the story.

However, he is in real danger of pushing the grief too far as the judge should/will not accept it and he is already changing/adding to the story in ways that will surely trip him up if he ever gets to x-exam."


Yep. ^^^^^

Consider the term "histrionic". Then add "Drama King".

Anyone here ever been mom or grandma (or dad or gandpa) to a little "Drama Queen" or "Drama King"? These little ones - and if they grow up unchecked, not-so-little ones - are indeed sensitive souls. Often they will howl - in outrage, in frustration, in anger, in disappointment, in whatever. Once they've finely honed their act, after the initial, genuine howl there comes the increasingly loud anguished and sustained howls. And this can go on and on. Sometimes the pitch and the intensity of the howls changes.

One of my grandsons did this as a young child. After a while, sometimes I would howl back at him. Then we would exchange howls. Eventually, he would end up laughing at me.

I don't know how common it is for this behavior to be sustained into adulthood. I know that my grandson who demonstrated it gave it up at around 7 or so.

Do I think Oscar Pitsorius is an adult "Drama King"? Oh yes I do.

Do I think the Judge has his number? Oh yes I do.

I think she is going to allow him to sit there and blubber and cry and howl and puke into his green bucket. But I'd bet this trial is going to proceed.

----------------------------

Did I hear Oscar say today that after shooting through the door that he then returned to the bedroom with the gun still in his hand? Then what? Picked up cricket bat? Now both hands are full? Back into bathroom to beat at toilet door with bat? Down hallway and into bathroom with gun in one hand and cricket bat in the other? Or both gun and bat in one hand so other hand can be used to hold onto wall due to his "bad balance" when on stumps?

Hmmmmmmm....

------------------------------

Relisten to today's (obviously practiced) narrative. Sometimes he is talking along and then he realizes he has forgotten some important point. He pauses - very, very slightly - in his narrative and quickly inserts the needed information. Information that seems to always be to his advantage.

Oscar does this at various times throughout his narrative. Listen for it and you will hear it. It is fairly blatant.
-------------------

I am not going to say that I don't think Oscar is all screwed up. I am also not going to say that I don't think he is cognizant of the enormity of what he has done.

I think he still thinks he can worm his way out of this. Using skills he developed as a young child. There are secondary gains associated with having an obvious handicap. Oscar has IMO learned to play on these to the hilt. And I think that HE thinks he is genuinely entitled to a "get out of jail free card" for this poor woman's murder.

I don't agree with that. I think jail time is in order for Oscar.

In my opinion, I agree with the much of the above. Growing up with a disability is both challenging and powerful as one gain's other people's sympathy, then one learns how to 'gain other people's sympathy' then one learns how to manipulate situations which evoke other people's sympathy to serve the self. Learning how to use your self in interaction with others in this way gives one 'power' over other people's perceptions and responses. i.e. they can learn to become 'manipulative'.

 

[soozieqtips]

Notice how he claims to have told Reeva to call the police more than once, but, lo and behold, he killed Reeva and never called the police.

Why?

Oh, I noticed. But he did call the Lord...

 

[nastasya]

Do you truly, honestly believe that OP life is going to carry on as normal when all this is over, regardless of the outcome?? He is going to be ostracized for the rest of his days. I highly doubt he will ever compete again, nevermind find anyone willing to sponsor him. Life as he knew it is well and truly over.

Who cares?

 

[MeeBee]

andrew hardingVerified account

‏@BBCAndrewH

Yes, if you can't see his face it's easy to see it that way. But from the reports from people who were actually there, not one has indicated that it looked anything other than completely genuine.

 

[wb180]

Exactly what is the lie?

Whatever seeming inconsistencies there are, you can bet Nel won't let them slide. He's not even finished with direct examination.

If he's lying and cannot explain things it should be obvious during cross examination.

After hearing him today, I find his account more credible than I ever have.

Not me. I think he is hiding stuff

 

[TorisMom003]

From the bail application statement:
I went out onto the balcony to bring in the fans.

From today:
The fan was sitting with two legs in the bedroom and one leg on the balcony.

From the BAS:
I yelled to Reeva to phone police.

From today:
I whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police.

From the BAS or the plea statement:
I heard a noise in the toilet room.

From today:
I heard the toilet room door slam shut.

Those are off the top of my head. There are more. I posted some of them in the thread after hearing them.

 

[minor4th]

The evidence is just not there to prove what he is saying is true, either.



The same could be said for some posters here who really want the story to be true; they want him to be innocent of knowingly killing her; they don't want this to be a domestic violence case. The evidence is just not there. Apparently.

But there doesn't have to be evidence to prove what he's saying is true. It only has to be reasonably possibly true.

To prove their case, the State on the other hand, must prove their version beyond a reasonable doubt and they haven't. They have not proved that Oscar's version is impossible or so improbable that it cannot be true.

It would be such an easier case of it was clearly a domestic violence homicide. If there were some evidence of that I would be the first to say throw him in jail for life.

I have no need for Oscar Pistorius to be either a hero or a villain. In fact I think he's neither. IMO he's a very flawed man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary death of a young lady. It's his fault - there's no denying that. But that doesn't make him a cold blooded domestic murderer either

 

[TorisMom003]

Yes, if you can't see his face it's easy to see it that way. But from the reports from people who were actually there, not one has indicated that it looked anything other than completely genuine.

Not true. There was one that was reported to have walked out before OP was done for the day as she was done watching the show. It was posted about in the thread.

 

[wb180]

So do I. And his story hasn't changed. From day one. That is key.

Unfortunately, I don't see the key because he has a new version of events during trial

 

[minor4th]

Not me. I think he is hiding stuff

Could be. It seemed believable to me.

Reckless, yes. Justified, no. But believable. I do not think he will be acquitted of all charges

 

[nastasya]

Only 1.

Estelle Van der Merwe.

Awoke an hour before shooting to hear people talking in loud voices as if arguing.

Unable to say which direction or which house this was coming from.

The rest did not hear an altercation, they heard screaming/shouting/calls for help, but none of them claimed to hear any argument or fight.

All of them heard two distinct voices, a woman's voice and a man's.

All of them heard a woman screaming in terror, escalating until her screaming ended after sounds of gun shots.

That's evidence of premeditated murder.

The killer has presented no evidence, other than changing, self-serving stories, to support his claim that he was in fear for his life, or in imminent danger.

The killer has instead presented evidence that he warned an alleged intruder to leave his home, then moved toward the intruder as an aggressor upon hearing the retreating "intruder" close the bathroom door.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, if you can't see his face it's easy to see it that way. But from the reports from people who were actually there, not one has indicated that it looked anything other than completely genuine.

That's what the post was - that everyone in the court room thought it was genuine (except for the political lobbyists, but what do you expect from those who believe all men are bad abusers and all women are innocent victims)

 

[wb180]

Could be. It seemed believable to me.

Reckless, yes. Justified, no. But believable. I do not think he will be acquitted of all charges

Well I guess it has had to be believable, he had a year to work on the details.

Wished he stay consistent with facts in the bail application statement though and explained his thinking behind those facts instead of changing the facts a bit. (but I guess the PT will do that)

 

[minor4th]

When a person is trying to make something sound genuine when it's not, it shows. As normal human beings we can tell when someone is being sincere. When a person who is not recalling a real event is describing fear, the tone and inflection of their voice will not match the words they are saying. They use catchphrases like, "mortal terror" and, "in fear of my life." OP recounting the events from that night really affected me because it sounded so real. It was if he was reliving the moment he thought an intruder had come into his home. There was genuine terror in his voice. And the horror he felt when he realized it could have been Reeva. "I didn't want it to be true." Also, a very visceral and real thing to say, IMO.



:moo:

Exactly

 

[TorisMom003]

Did OP use the phrase "I was in fear of my life" today in trial? I thought I remembered hearing that.

 

[liesbeth]

Please forgive me if I do this wrong or if this has already been posted on this forum. I did try to read through all the threads, but it is possible I missed it.

Here's an interesting post about the law in South Africa with specific reference to the OP trial:
<modsnip>

So the case comes down to credibility. Will the judge and her two assessors believe that Oscar truly thought his life was in danger?

 

[kittychi]

I do agree totally.

REASONABLE is an essential part of the old "Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" Golden thread that runs through our common judicial system.
One can not simply propose some outlandish alternative explanation that can not be tested.

There is nothing outlandish about OP's version, the State evidence, taken as a whole agrees with it. I personally think OP's version is essentially true, but that is not required at all. All that is required is that the State can not discredit it as an alternative to their own Prosecution Theory of events.

The burden placed on the State is a difficult standard to achieve... intentionally so. We as a society have decided that it is abhorrent to convict an innocent man, and so we are prepared to let some guilty men go free to lessen the chance of that happening. So we place this high stanard on the State... to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

This case is not some "grey area" case where the doubt is borderline. There is clearly HUGE doubt that the State's version is true. In fact I would go so far as to say the the facts of this case completely DISPROVE the State's case. (Refer to my earlier posts about time line of events)

BBM: The State's case is that he unlawfully and intentionally killed a person--Reeva. I haven't heard a "version," what have I missed?

I don't know how the State can prove what was in someone's brain or how they can prove what witnesses heard without a tape recording. If witnesses are not believed, then why put them on the stand? Does possible witness lying count as "reasonable doubt?"

He has already lied under oath when he denied shooting out the sunroof of the car unless you believe that Samantha lied under oath.

Why wouldn't he lie to keep himself out of jail for 25 years? He has everything to lose. He has come up with a "reasonable" explanation for his actions--that he is terrified of intruders and he thought she was an intruder. We will see if his story stays intact or not. Nel has not gotten started with him yet.