Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Duchy]

Not as bad as the JFK autopsy photos.

Wearing the same T shirt she was wearing in her mini at the estate gates isn't she?

 

[emmavoberry]

But he has owned it. Why does he have to say the specific words? What difference does it make how he says it???

As strategy, OP + defense have tried to distance the act from the agent and essentially blame "circumstances." So, as strategy, the prosecution needs to put the gun and its consequences squarely back in his hands. That's just a first step. The other strategy is to paint him a liar. In any case, the case all comes down to circumstantial evidence, to his state of mind. You might not like the prosecution's strategy, but it would be negligent and incompetent not to play the best cards. The defense must play the sympathy card. Prosecution must counter that hand.

 

[04009margaret]

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.

Well culpable homicide sounds like a done deal to me. From everything I'm hearing in the media SA has a 1% rule for culpable homicide.

 

[BritsKate]

This is where I totally thought Nel lost the plot. How did he damage OP with this line of questioning?

'Contamination, disturbance, tampering'. Rinse, repeat. Look, I'm trying really hard to remain respectful of differing opinions here but you said yourself just a day or two into the State's case that witnesses who didn't allow for concessions that there could be a different version of the truth were making themselves look like fools. Not verbatim, of course, but that it made their testimony suspect because they were so dogged.

Anytime he was asked about those fans he kept repeating defence memo talking points instead of actually stating what he'd done. Then he became agitated because he refused to actually answer. If it didn't hurt him, it sure as hell didn't help either because it made him seem evasive even if he isn't - it made him look like he's persecuting investigators even if he isn't - it made him appear as though he's trying to obfuscate even if he isn't.

MOO

ETA: Eventually Oscar did concede but I believe the damage was already done by that point. Or non damage, as some will have it.

 

[Dmacky]

Has anyone kept a list of all the people OP's apportioned blame to so far? I kind of have half a one;

Darren - speeding, irresponsibility with a gun

Sam - stalking

Police - moving things, telling him he could wash his hands

Roux - he got his client's affidavit wrong

Dr. Stripp ~ "He didn't know what he was doing." Oscar said HE himself knew what to do and was already doing it

 

[soozieqtips]

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!!!!

BBM - And he's only just started!!

This short clip about whether the prosecution is being too tough on OP is very interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-accidentally-fired-gun-times/story?id=23251260

Nancy Grace (former prosecutor) is great!!!! She says: "I can guarantee you, in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend, and then you cry on the stand - we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry".

 

[crasshopper]

... I don't know anyone can logically say this man is a sociopath. No psychologist would.

Intense rage can lead the most seemingly normal of us to be reckless. You don't have to be a sociopath to shoot someone in anger. That is why in some countries "crime of passion" is an accepted defense.

It's unfortunate Oscar was such a gun toting enthusiast.

 

[Fuskier]

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.

BBM. IMO this is a solid point.

 

[nastasya]

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 can imagine there will be much discussion about contents of WhatsApp messages, internet access, cell phones, arterial spurting of blood 8 minutes after killer claimed he shot victim dead, watches, broken doors, the missing phone, shooting guns, the dented tub, and further questions about the extent to which the killer "re-worked" his "version" of the story with his defense team.

The killer's confession about the re-working of the defense version might have even voided the protection of attorney-client privilege since it was the killer who brought up the subject.

 

[IfIMay]

But he has owned it. Why does he have to say the specific words? What difference does it make how he says it???

As strategy, OP + defense have tried to distance the act from the agent and essentially blame "circumstances." So, as strategy, the prosecution needs to put the gun and its consequences squarely back in his hands. That's just a first step. The other strategy is to paint him a liar. In any case, the case all comes down to circumstantial evidence, to his state of mind. You might not like the prosecution's strategy, but it would be negligent and incompetent not to play the best cards. The defense must play the sympathy card. Prosecution must counter that hand.

I would argue that if he can't say specifically his actions caused her death, then he hasn't really owned it. He says "mistake", "tragedy" "accident" easily, but there is absolutely no ownership in that at all. I don't see how you can argue it does. He can't even admit he pulled the trigger without obscuring in language that takes away all of his own action.

He is a long way from accepting it and owning it. He's still in a fetal position denial of his deadly actions. Clear as day, he is trying hard to escape responsibility.

The words are very important. And he finally said them.

 

[MeeBee]

Well culpable homicide sounds like a done deal to me. From everything I'm hearing in the media SA has a 1% rule for culpable homicide.

I think he'll get culpable homicide.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have just watched a Sky report in the UK on which a SA attorney said he thinks the Defence are going for Automatism.

 

[minor4th]

Hence mortified. People seem to conveniently omit the fact that this word also means shame when referring to OP's use of the term.

That's all it means; but I think it has been misconstrued.

mor·ti·fy verb \ˈmȯr-tə-ˌfī\

: to cause (someone) to feel very embarrassed and foolish

Examples of MORTIFY

- It mortified me to have to admit that I'd never actually read the book.
- <was mortified by her children's atrocious manners>

SYNONYMS
embarrass, humiliate, chagrin, discomfit, shame, abash, horrify, appall

 

[G.bng]

I agree that there's a difference - Mrs. Stipp was clearly lying (or she was tricked by the police into signing a statement that they fudged) and Oscar's was an in-artful use of words that has now been clarified - no reason for him to contradict himself and give a different version now. It's not like he totally made up seeing a person that he didn't see.

Yes, it was a mistake to shoot through the door - he mistakenly believed it to be an intruder. That ain't murder. Is he minimizing it at times? YES, of course he is.

But OP did totally make up stepping out onto a balcony that he didn't put a foot or stump on, and he did not immediately correct his statement the following day as Mrs Stipp did, realising she had been confused. And Mrs Stipp's statement was not to obtain bail.

 

[emmavoberry]

Re: sleeping dogs. LOL! My little Chihuahua would wake in an instant if someone was breaking and entering. He barks when residents come into our building lobby downstairs. Sure, Chi's are fierce little watchdogs. But I believe OP got the dogs as guard dogs. Guard types don't fall asleep on the job so to speak.

 

[beach]

Link to NBC correspondent Jeff Rossen's report - The Today Show. - Part 1

Link to Part 2

 

[Duchy]

Yes, that's a good point. Also, he says that he was looking down the corridor for the intruder (not exact words, I need to look them up, but he definitley used the word 'looking') .. yet he would never have been able to see them, because of this 'pitch blackness' (which has been reinforced by introducing the 'black out curtains' and the covering of the LED light)

Where are these black out curtains?

 

[MeeBee]

BBM - And he's only just started!!

This short clip about whether the prosecution is being too tough on OP is very interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-accidentally-fired-gun-times/story?id=23251260

Nancy Grace (former prosecutor) is great!!!! She says: "I can guarantee you, in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend, and then you cry on the stand - we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry".

Uh, Nancy, Of course, they'd adjourn if he was crying uncontrollably, especially since we have juries and there's a potential for influencing a jury. An adjournment would be called immediately. Seems the only reason they've been doing it lately is to have OP collect himself so he can give effective testimony.

 

[MeeBee]

BBM. IMO this is a solid point.

But it's inaccurate, respectfully.

 

[MeeBee]

Intense rage can lead the most seemingly normal of us to be reckless. You don't have to be a sociopath to shoot someone in anger. That is why in some countries "crime of passion" is an accepted defense.

It's unfortunate Oscar was such a gun toting enthusiast.

Right.

Crime of passion and premeditation are two different monsters. Do you believe it was the former or the latter?