Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
I missed this, so thanks for posting. If he was still fearful, why turn his back on the possibility more is coming his way; why drop the gun; why abandon "combat mode," to go all the way back down hall to put legs on?
 
With all due respect, I disagree. Sociopaths and the criminally minded in general tend to cannily avoid taking responsibility as active agents, often using passive constructions to frame their deeds. Just as anecdote, I recall a murderer who had choked his victim to death saying something to the effect of he "reacted" to HER prodding him until "she was taken by death." OP talks about when "the tragedy happened." Accidental or not, he caused the tragedy.

I think of Jodi. Her defense was self defense (even though it wasn't). Thinking she would be seen as very honest and forthright she continuously admitted not only to killing Travis, but saying the words, "I killed him." She would matter of fairly describe having to kill him in self defense, as if that's just the way it had to be. It never seemed right to most people. Even if he was attacking you, recalling the incident would be very, very difficult and one who genuinely felt remorse would not be able to talk so matter of factly about having to kill someone they loved. She would sometimes downplay the event by calling it his "passing" or that he'd "passed away," or she'd round about apologize by saying, "sorry Travis attacked me and I had to kill him," similar to the man you mentioned, but she never had any qualms about admitting to being his killer. I find his reluctance to say the words, "I killed her," to ring true.
 
Oh, I think it's incredibly difficult for him to say those words. I think he feels tremendous shame and guilt about it.

Very easy for him to grab his gun.

Very easy for him to shoot four times at somebody in the toilet KNOWING he didn't check to see if it was Reeva.

Very difficult to speak 3 words... "I killed Reeva"

Poor Oscar. :boohoo:

What's sick, and why he will end up in prison, is that he felt no shame or guilt before firing his gun at the person behind the toilet door.
 
As to dogs--obviously he thought the intruders had paid them off with juicy steaks.
 
OP claimed that on stumps he had to move continuously to keep his balance, so he's moving constantly in the bathroom with gun raised. At the same time, his eyes were moving back and forth from WC door to bathroom window where other intruders could suddenly attack him. So, legs moving, eyes roving, arms raised with gun pointed, and OP still managed to hit Reeva with 3 of his 4 shots.

Some people in the press that witnessed his demo in court yesterday are asking how on earth he could possibly lift those fans on his stumps. Meaning this is a question he needs to answer
 
I don't know about you folks, but Nel completely freaked me out today with the plug issue! If he can damage OP to that extent with that excellent detective type discovery, I cannot even begin to fathom what kind of h*** is headed towards OP! LOL!!!!
 
I find his reluctance to say the words, "I killed her," to ring true.

Truly self-serving. What he and his lawyers want to sound true is that he was not the active agent of Reeva's death. And they would like the judge to focus on O.P. as victim. Victim of "the tragedy," circumstances, fate, the need to protect Reeva, his great love for HIS baba, HIS terror "that night," which he does not want to have to re-live at the sight of wounds inflicted by tragic fate. MeeBee, you are too kind to OP. But I think it must be out of kindness and trust and that because you are truthful you believe others are.
 
why don't you try it.. just to show you are "unbiased"? What are the State's strong points?

Well, I should qualify that I guess - I could not make a convincing argument for premeditated murder because I do not think there's any evidence of it, and I think Nel knows this as well. I just don't think this is even a close call at all.

But I could argue strongly for culpable homicide. The point is, I can look at a situation and come up with arguments for either side - and this is often a process we have to go through while preparing for trial. You try to come up with the best arguments the other side can bring, and then you figure out how your own evidence and arguments can overcome or counter the other side's best points.
 
I don't know about you folks, but Nel completely freaked me out today with the plug issue! If he can damage OP to that extent with that excellent detective type discovery, I cannot even begin to fathom what kind of h*** is headed towards OP! LOL!!!!

This is where I totally thought Nel lost the plot. How did he damage OP with this line of questioning?
 
Yes in the UK That would be my expectation of an emergency call,they even kept me on the phone when I thought someone had broken into my house.
They kept speaking to me until the police arrived .
The thing that really puzzles me is why the Netcare operative or call recording weren't presented as evidence by the prosecution .
It indicates that OP may have been truthful about it or that Nel really thinks he has enough without it . I guess we will have to listen to the rest of the trial and hope this is cleared up .

But Roux never brought it up either
 
I missed this, so thanks for posting. If he was still fearful, why turn his back on the possibility more is coming his way; why drop the gun; why abandon "combat mode," to go all the way back down hall to put legs on?

Could be wrong here but I think he said he backed away rather than turned his back
 
:facepalm:

OP couldn't last but a few minutes without being caught in a corner with his lies. And what does he resort to? Oh but of course his sob session. Rescues him every time.

Any doubt little cry baby OP always got the last cookie in the jar and the first ride at the fair?
 
I find his reluctance to say the words, "I killed her," to ring true.

Truly self-serving. What he and his lawyers want to sound true is that he was not the active agent of Reeva's death. And they would like the judge to focus on O.P. as victim. Victim of "the tragedy," circumstances, fate, the need to protect Reeva, his great love for HIS baba, HIS terror "that night," which he does not want to have to re-live at the sight of wounds inflicted by tragic fate. MeeBee, you are too kind to OP. But I think it must be out of kindness and trust and that because you are truthful you believe others are.

Absolutely not. I like to think I am a good person, but I just make my observations based on my own reading of people. I don't know anyone can logically say this man is a sociopath. No psychologist would.
 
But Roux never brought it up either

Maybe Roux is going to bring the transcript into evidence . I think it would be good to know exactly what did take place on that call because I can imagine lots of scenarios but would prefer the facts .
 
BBM

That is quite a pass that you are giving him there. He shot 4 black talons through a blind door, having no idea who was on the other side, and he hadn't 'really thought about what he was doing?'

So he was in such a sheer panic that even though he had lots of thoughts, which he described, he hadn't thought that he might kill someone on the other end of his bullets?

Just like when he signed his original bail statement, which he now wants to divorce himself from, you see no issue with his signing it legally as his truth? It seems he gets a pass on that too, as you say it is just semantics. Whereas Lady Stipp was branded an outright liar. Odd, imo.

I'm not giving him a pass - I was interpreting what I thought he was trying to communicate. I did not say it's ok with me. I said I believe that he panicked and shot his gun before thinking.
 
With all due respect, I disagree. Sociopaths and the criminally minded in general tend to cannily avoid taking responsibility as active agents, often using passive constructions to frame their deeds. Just as anecdote, I recall a murderer who had choked his victim to death saying something to the effect of he "reacted" to HER prodding him until "she was taken by death." OP talks about when "the tragedy happened." Accidental or not, he caused the tragedy.

Bulls eye! :goodpost:
 
How do the legal eagles here explain the difference between the affidavit saying they "both went to sleep" to the updated version of him having a conversation with Reeva and asking her if she was "having trouble sleeping".

I see it as quite crucial to his credibility as he'd definitely remember the last time he saw her alive and even what he said to her. It's something most people remember when a loved one dies or is killed.

BIB. The question, issue, of why didnt OP see Reeva was raised by Magistrate Nair at the bail hearing as one of the flaws he found with OPs fairy tale. So it does appear that the DT set about to correct that in his plea explaination.

ETA:

Quote:
"Nair also pointed out holes in Pistorius’ story which may prove important when the case comes to trial. He asked why Pistorius had not ascertained Steenkamp's wherabouts, why he had not verified who was in the toilet and why Steenkamp did not scream back from the toilet, among other questions."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2013/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-bail-decision-live-coverage
 
I truly wouldn't be able to say them, either, without breaking down.

Conversely, I don't think a sociopath or someone who doesn't feel genuine remorse deep down would have trouble saying them, at all.

Exactly right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
402
Total visitors
547

Forum statistics

Threads
626,911
Messages
18,535,427
Members
241,153
Latest member
Aimiss
Back
Top